Carter David: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3170] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I have looked forward for some time under an MMP Parliament to when the Greens could put forward a member’s bill that the National Party would agree was a very sensible initiative and could proudly support. I take this opportunity of congratulating Jeanette Fitzsimons on picking up the depth of concern in both rural and urban New Zealand against the stupidity of the legislation that had been advanced by the Labour Government. I further congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimons on drafting a bill by 10 o’clock in the morning and being able to secure it out of the ballot in the archaic system we still operate for members’ bills by about 12 o’clock the same day. 
The bill does give New Zealand a chance to debate the stupidity of the issue yet again. If we do not have success in Parliament tonight depending on the votes of United Future and New Zealand First this will not be the end of the matter. The legislation will still come back before Parliament with the local government amendment legislation that is currently before the select committee. Parliament has already accepted two further amendments in my name which will further debate this issue and give parliamentarians the chance to reconsider the stupid position that Labour has got itself into. 
The current legislation imposes a huge cost on all dog owners for absolutely no advantage. I have seen some costings recently that suggest rural New Zealand alone will face a cost of $3 million each and every year because of the legislation advanced by the Labour Government. Labour originally argued that a microchip in the neck of a dog would stop dog attacks. We now have about 40 or 50 people in New Zealand all Labour members of Parliament who are still stupid enough to believe that. But all other New Zealanders who have given thought to this issue know that a microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop one dog attack whatsoever. So the question needs to be asked as to why all dog owners will be saddled with a huge compliance cost when it will not achieve what Helen Clark said it was going to achieve. 
The other argument that I have heard from Helen Clark is that it will not really cost very much money because people will be able to insert the microchip themselves. Can members imagine people being able to put a huge needle into the neck of a dog themselves without seriously hurting that animal? But then if people were to do that the stupidity of the legislation that Helen Clark passed means that people then have to take the dog down to the vet anyway to get the vet to verify that the microchip is there in the first place. In other words Helen Clark should wake up. Her suggestion will not cut the compliance costs at all. 
But the next issue that worries me is that if the legislation remains as is it will be totally unenforceable. We have now had councils coming to Parliament over recent weeks saying that they will either completely ignore the law or give it low priority. I ask members of Parliament what the point is of persisting with a law that puts a compliance on to local councils when the local councils say themselves they simply will not enforce it. 
The third reason I support Jeanette Fitzsimon’s bill tonight is that in actual fact the legislation of the Labour Government will be counter-productive. I have been speaking to thousands of New Zealand farmers who now regularly register their dogs on an annual basis and get absolutely nothing for it. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It’s for hydatids control. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Hydatids control went out years ago. Farmers get absolutely nothing for their registration fees. People pay $20 a year to register their dog with the Banks Peninsula District Council. They get a little plastic tag and I tell Brian Donnelly that that is it. There is no hydatids control at all. So those people are saying now they will not even register their dog if they are forced to microchip it. In other words we will see an increase in the number of unregistered dogs right throughout rural and urban New Zealand because of Labour’s legislation. 
Now let us look at the politics of this issue. New Zealand First members—absolute poodles to the Government—have lined themselves up and said that they will vote this legislation down and when my amendments are before the House they will vote with the Government. I spoke to Brian Donnelly an hour or so ago. He said they have been talking to the Government and have done a deal. They are going to see how the law works for the next 3 years and then they are going to demand a review of the legislation. Well I have news for Brian Donnelly: he will not even be in Parliament in 3 years’ time. Winston Peters has taken his bauble. He is a Minister of the Government. As soon as he has finished with that he is off to the High Commissioner’s job in London and New Zealand First will not even be in Parliament to demand a review of this legislation. 
But if one thinks New Zealand First’s position is stupid and illogical then let us think about where United Future has got itself. Gordon Copeland who has been in the rural media time after time arguing for an exemption for farm working dogs is going to table an amendment before Parliament. He has been saying that now for 8 weeks. He still does not have any amendment before Parliament and I do not think he will actually deliver one. He is all talk and that is what the rural media are saying. More important what they are really saying is that if Gordon Copeland thinks microchipping farm dogs is bad why is he going to vote to support the Government tonight and in actual fact force all dogs to be microchipped? I ask Gordon Copeland what the logic is in that. He is strangely quiet because he knows there is absolutely no logic at all to United Future’s position. 
This is a very sensible piece of legislation. There is an argument that dangerous dogs been identified they should be microchipped. Jeanette Fitzsimon’s bill allows that to happen. Why saddle a cost on all good dog owners—responsible and law-abiding people—for the sake of a few dogs that attack people? 
Hon Member:  
It’s a business expense. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh now those members over there argue that it is a business expense. That is what is wrong with them. They say that because it is a business expense it is not another compliance cost. They say it is deductible at the end of the year so it does not matter. I say to Ron Mark he should wake up while he still has 2 more years in this place. He should wake up and realise that the farmers of New Zealand are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with compliance costs. Whether or not it is tax deductible makes no difference at all. It is a cost that will not achieve a thing. [ 
Interruption 
] And now he says we should microchip cows. I asked Ron Mark to tell us when he takes a call in this debate where the legislation that forces any farmer to microchip a cow is. There is not any! That is how much that man knows about rural New Zealand. He knows nothing about rural New Zealand. 
What has happened is that Helen Clark and the Labour Government face a very embarrassing defeat over this issue. Helen Clark and Heather Simpson have been on the phone and they have this stupid position lined up with their two “poodle” parties which will support the Government. What New Zealand First and United Future do not realise is that the public of New Zealand is wholeheartedly opposed to microchipping and to the stupidity of that legislation. The public is brighter than those members over there. At the next election—members can mark my words—this little issue will be a big issue in the minds of dog owners and they will not forget which way United Future and New Zealand First voted tonight.