Roy Eric: Third Readings 
Roy Eric: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3874] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 We are debating the third readings of the eight separate bills that were formerly part of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I certainly will not have time to cover all those bills but there are some salient points I wish to make principally around what has been seen as being the fundamental issue that has captivated and captured New Zealand over the last few weeks—that is the Dog Control Amendment Bill and the aspects of that relating to the microchipping of dogs. 
I begin by acknowledging the work that was done on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I acknowledge the select committee clerks for their diligence and for the work they did for the submitters who submitted from all over New Zealand. By and large the submitters took a very rational approach. Some submitted by way of videoconferencing and they made some very clear and reasonably articulate points. It is interesting that from memory only three local authorities made some claim to the fact that they wanted to see the microchipping of dogs proceed. Almost everybody else was against it. So we thank them for their contribution. A couple of petitions were also reported back with the bill. A number of people around New Zealand signed petitions under the names of a number of people and organisations saying that the bill was a nonsense. 
So my next acknowledgment would be to those individuals and parties who listened to the voice of the public. They articulated very clearly a number of issues about efficacy about longevity about actually fixing the problem and about the costs. Concerns were raised about a number of issues and the National Party was one that clearly considered all the facts and wanted to make an absolutely unequivocal stand to say that microchipping was a nonsense. We said that if we could not have that then we would support an exemption for working dogs and we got there. 
I also acknowledge some of my parliamentary colleagues in other parties particularly in ACT the Maori Party and the Green Party—in fact all of the Greens; they actually had some principles around which they made their decision. I concurred with their initial position. Then when it looked as though we were at an impasse and were going to make no progress whatsoever four Green Party members shifted their position so that we actually got some resolution. I think the decision is quite a sensible one—and I will come to that. A lot of people had an expectation that MMP would deliver the kind of decision we achieved out of this and I acknowledge those members who shifted their position and listened and those parties that divided and allowed that to happen. 
I want to comment that New Zealand First members took a very intransigent position right through. If I were to use an analogy in the dog world I think it would be that they ended up like a little dog surrounded by four tyres: in the end they did not have a leg to stand on. They completely misread the public and were quite uninformed in a number of the comments they made throughout the process of the bill. In the second reading debate members of the New Zealand First Party were telling us about hydatids control. Well for goodness’ sake how far out of touch could they have been! 
On reflection I think there is an interesting question about why we need to register dogs at all particularly farm dogs. I pay a $15 dog registration fee and for that I get a little disc I can attach to the dog’s collar. That is all I get. The management of animal health issues both hydatids and sheep measles whatever form it is in— 
Taenia ovis 
 or  
Cysticercus ovis 
—is my responsibility and the trace-back is from the freezing works. If it occurs on my sheep I have to answer to that. But registration does nothing other than provide me with a little disc and that raises questions about just how important registration actually is. 
I mentioned earlier that I think we achieved not a bad resolution. If we listened to the people of New Zealand we would have heard some local authorities say they wanted microchipping. I honestly do not know why they want it but if that is the case then that is fair enough. To me local authorities having a permissive regime whereby they could decide whether they wanted microchipping probably was not a bad answer and that is what we have ended up with. Section 5 of the Dog Control Act of 1996 states that local authorities must determine a dog management policy but after that it gets prescriptive and tells them a whole lot of things they can and cannot do. A range of costs have come out of that and people get grumpy about the costs that central government lays on local authorities. That largely was another reason why there was such an outcry about the process of microchipping. It would incur costs without actually doing anything to solve the problem which was dogs biting people and particularly in response to the Carolina Anderson incident savaging young children. 
The definitions under Section 2 of the Act state that a local authority can determine what is a working dog. This legislation is giving us the permissive environment that I thought perhaps we should have got to. So we have had a win. In my area in the southern zones the local authorities held up their hands and said they would not enforce microchipping. They actually took the Government on and said they would not enforce it. I do not know what would have happened had microchipping progressed through as a mandatory requirement. I think they would have just waited for it to be reeled back after a change of Government. But now local authorities do not have to break the law because they can actually determine that all dogs in their areas are working dogs. They will now be able to do some things with quite enthusiastic initiative because one of the issues we have talked about but never dealt with is allowing dogs into this country that have no right to be here. Those dogs by their nature are macho aggressive dogs. They include the Brazilian fila and a whole lot of others. So local authorities could have their own registers and say that those dogs shall not be working dogs and that all others are. So they could now require the menacing dangerous dog by breed to be microchipped. But they could also say that anybody who has had an offence for the ill-treatment of a dog or anybody who has been known to keep dogs for the purpose of dogfights or anything else is not eligible for an exemption as having a working dog. 
So we have actually put in place something that I think is quite innovative. We probably did it quite by accident—and I see the Green members are nodding; they concur with the decision we finally reached. I tell those Green members that they are largely responsible for the brilliant outcome we have achieved and I again acknowledge them for that. So we have now ended up with something whereby central government has provided a permissive regime that can be determined by local authorities. I think honestly that that is a pretty good outcome. 
John Carter 
: We did well. 
ERIC ROY 
: We did exceptionally well. I think it says a lot about the understanding of the Government and its members not to have picked up on that situation. 
John Carter 
: But we did—we cunning ones who saw it. 
ERIC ROY 
: Oh yes we saw it but we did not want to raise it earlier because the Government would have closed it down. I look forward to working with local authorities now and encouraging them to put in place regimes that will deal with the problem. 
I conclude by saying there are some other harsher things that I think we should have done. Dogs are an intrinsic part of this society. We have changed the legislation to recognise “disability assist” as a term and have had a small part in that. We recognise such dogs as companions as working dogs as dogs for protection and as dogs that find people who are lost in avalanches. We use dogs for a multiplicity of reasons. But there are some people who use dogs for inappropriate things. 
One of the amendments I introduced at the Committee stage stated that we should have zero tolerance towards dogs that attack and bite children. Members who seriously wanted to do something that would have put a line in the sand about what was or was not acceptable behaviour could have voted for that amendment. That would have put an unequivocal message before this nation of dog owners as to what would happen if their dogs misbehaved. The opportunity has gone but I hope members reflect that that is something they should have given more thought to during the Committee stage. 
I thank the House for the opportunity of making these points through this third reading speech. Of course a number of other areas were dealt with and they have been mentioned by other members. They include littering issues around the policing of special transport lanes and the rates rebate. But there is an overriding factor that does concern National in that many of the things included in this local law reform legislation—which is now divided into eight bills—have a cost implication that has to be picked up by the ratepayer. I want to conclude on that note that as central government as a Parliament we have the responsibility to be aware of just handing on costs—shovelling them out of here and letting someone else worry about them—and there are significant cost imposts in this legislation. As a member of the National Party I want to register our concern about that.