Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2530] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is good to have the opportunity to take what I guess will be the final call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I am disappointed in the previous speaker Mr Peter Brown. Normally he is a man who speaks sense. I do not know why he is in Parliament. I will tell members why I am here: I came here to make a difference. What the bill actually proposes in Part 1 “Amendments to Dog Control Act 1996”—which is the enactment of those things around control over dogs biting people—will not make one scrap of difference. I ask the member to reflect on the words that the Hon Maurice Williamson used. He stole quite a bit of my thunder so I will not repeat his words. But I have to simply say that putting a microchip in a dog will not stop it biting anybody. I will talk some more about that in a minute. 
But firstly can I just speak broadly about the bill. My local mayor Tim Shadbolt—I think it is probably appropriate to mention his name because he is in hospital after having a car accident and I hope that Tim has a speedy recovery—and I have had a number of discussions over how Parliament makes rules and says “Fix that!” or “Implement that!” in a local government situation. Layer upon layer of costs have gone to local government and it has had to front up to its ratepayers and say for example: “Yep an 8 percent rate increase this year.” Ratepayers are saying: “Why are the rates going up if inflation’s X?”. It is simply because we are loading layer and layer of actual compliance costs upon local authorities. If the member is at all concerned about that he will not support the microchipping of dogs and all of the costs that actually go with that. Tomorrow our select committee is going to Manurewa to talk to its council about prostitute management and there is a local bill because they want to deal with that— 
Peter Brown 
: Microchipping! 
ERIC ROY 
: Do not go there. This is layer upon layer of costs that we are downloading on to local authorities. I have to say that that is entirely inappropriate. If the member wants to make a difference he ought to give scrutiny to the legislation that we pass in the House. If legislation will be effective sure let us do it; if it will not be effective let us not do it. Let us not go for what I call placebo legislation where we kid ourselves that we are actually doing something of benefit when we are not. Maurice Williamson made a very valid point about the Kyoto Protocol in his speech today. 
Peter Brown 
: He did. 
ERIC ROY 
: Yes absolutely. If it is not going to fix it let us not impose a cost. Let us not go there; let us not put people through a whole lot of issues that they do not actually have to face. 
There are some good things in this part about dog legislation especially in the provisions for companion dogs and dogs that are developing a range of skills that actually help people. We need to go through whatever we need to do to let those dogs go into restaurants on public transport or go into places they normally do not go. We need to tidy that bit up and support that element of the bill. 
But the rest of it is a load of nonsense. I could mount a case in this House that says it is more important to microchip cats than dogs. In terms of zoonosis—diseases that people catch from animals—cats are the worst. The average cat in its lifetime kills 700 birds—many of them natives. There are a raft of things that I could put up in the House to say: “We should be microchipping cats.” but that is a nonsense. It is a nonsense to say that we should microchip dogs when one could have a pet bull and take it to town. That is much more dangerous and it does not have to be microchipped. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
ERIC ROY 
: I inform the House that I am I think the last speaker on the Local Government Law Reform Bill. The area of the bill I have been canvassing is Part 1 which principally deals with menacing and dangerous dogs. The point I was making before the dinner break was that the legislation will not fix the problem. That is essentially the message I have been bringing to the House. 
Because I am the last speaker I will sum up one point that I think is appropriate to canvass. One or two members have mentioned specific breeds of dogs—even Rottweilers have been mentioned. It is dangerous to try to brand a breed of dog; it is more important that we say there are inappropriate owners. My own experience with Rottweilers particularly with the pure-breds is that they are certainly no greater threat than most other dogs and certainly less threat than some. It would be a wee bit inappropriate if we left the message that Rottweilers are dangerous dogs. There are dog breeders who have a set breeding programme and also an environment that can make any dog dangerous. Those are the people whom we need to deal with. If a person has an intention to breed and develop a macho-type dog then he or she will certainly not be lining up to register it and will be even less likely to line the dog up to have it microchipped. 
The other point I made before the dinner break was that this bill will load more costs on to local authorities. But it does not stop just at local authorities because the bill states that there are rights of appeal so we are also loading up the District Courts. New section 71B to be inserted by clause 11 states there can be appeals. That brings in a range of other questions. Will there be legal aid to defend one’s dog should some activity that is dealt with in the bill impact on one’s dog? If one is not happy with the District Court I guess one could appeal to the High Court. This provides more and more layers that will be seriously ineffectual. 
I say to the House that if we have a problem—and I believe we do—we should not have a knee-jerk reaction because Carolina Anderson was bitten by a dog whose owners we knew about and were subsequently charged. We should do something about dogs that are largely unregistered. If the House wants to be serious then it has to consider passing legislation that would destroy dogs that cause the problem. That would send a very very clear message. 
Parts of the bill are almost humorous to me. New section 33EB to be inserted by clause 9 states that the “Territorial authority … may require neutering of menacing dog”. I have to say to the House that the issue is not bestiality; it is about dogs biting people. We have a mixed message here. I am not sure who dreamt up that particular provision— 
Hon David Carter 
: Chris Carter. 
ERIC ROY 
: I have to say it is certainly ineffectual. I have mentioned before my experience in dog control measures being on the National Hydatids Council and the problems with unregistered dogs. Last week I rang up my next-door neighbour who is a bit poorly in hospital and I asked what I could do to help. His wife asked me to shear their rams. I went and borrowed his dog. It was not microchipped and it never bit me. I ran the rams into the yards on Saturday. Lo and behold the first ram I approached charged me—maybe it should be microchipped. It is an absolute nonsense to say that microchipping dogs will actually stop the problem. 
A number of issues about this bill absolutely concern me including the loading up of costs on to the local authorities and the efficacy of the approach of microchipping. Maurice Williamson spoke about having to virtually rub the scanner over the dog. I have talked to people who have tried to find microchips in rough-coated dogs and they have not been able to read them. This provision is an absolute nonsense. I support my colleague David Carter who will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s there now. 
ERIC ROY 
: It is there now but we will deal with it in the Committee stage. I have to say that if we wanted to be sensible we would simply say no to microchipping any dogs and we would bring in some serious provisions that would deal with menacing dogs and the people who own them. Only obedient citizens will microchip their dogs. It is a process about which there are serious questions of efficacy and it will not stop dogs menacing or savaging people. 
National will not support the bill. We do not believe the numbers will be there to carry it through but we will determinedly progress the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of David Carter. We look forward to that and to receiving further support from the House in seeing some sensible solutions in that regard.