Ardern Shane: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3733] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I say for a start that bad cases make bad law. We all know how this bill arrived in Parliament: it was a reaction to the horrendous attack on Carolina Anderson that young girl in Auckland. I also say to this Parliament that once one has sat through a select committee process on something as controversial as this where all the evidence—100 percent—is against the notion that this dopey legislation will work and then the Government decides to proceed with it you do have to ask what really motivates this Government. If the answer is not politics politics politics then what is the answer? The answer is politics; that is all that motivates Government members. Nothing else matters. The facts never ever get in the way of a good piece of politics with this Government. 
I say to the support parties that I hope the poodles do not have too many microchips in them because when the Government consumes them it might choke on the microchips. That is what will happen. If members have never seen a case of Christians being fed to the lions then it is here tonight in the House with Gordon Copeland—absolutely. He is a very good Christian and what has happened is he has been gobbled up by the lions over in the Labour caucus tonight. I hope they do not choke on his microchip. 
I say to the House tonight that this technology will not work. That is a fact. It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that with a lot of dog breeds—not all of them but with many of them—if we insert a microchip into a 6-month-old pup as the law requires and as stated in this bill by the time the dog is 18 months old the chip will have disappeared so far into the dog’s body fat that the scanning device will not read the technology. That is what Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party found out at the Local Government and Environment Committee which is why she put forward an amendment to the bill in relation to this particular legislation. 
It is interesting to see one of the Labour Government’s old dogs Jim Sutton over there in the back corner yapping away. I am not sure whether he is now a lapdog or a Labrador or where exactly he fits into it but it is good to see him back. Why is he not on the front bench? Why is the honourable member Jim Anderton the Minister of Agriculture? 
Jim Sutton said he would back the farmers and when he had the chance in this Parliament to back the farmers what happened? The legislation was voted down 61 to 60. Whose vote was that? With the one chance he had to actually demonstrate to the farming community he was going to back them when he had an opportunity right here in Parliament what did he do? He voted them down. Jim Sutton is another I think former Christian I could say. I am not sure; I do not want to get into that. But he is another one who has been consumed by the lions that is for sure. So much for Jim Sutton. Out there on the hustings— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’m a Christian. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well one thing that is consistent about New Zealand First members is their support for this measure. So I say to my good colleague Doug Woolerton that at least he has been consistent. He is absolutely wrong but he is consistently wrong so that is good. At least we know he will be wrong and consistently wrong. I think Doug Woolerton knows this himself without it being stated in the House but I say to him that his party will be dog-tucker. The reality is that when the vote is counted and as Winston disappears over the horizon somewhere—I am not sure whether it will be Canada or London but it will be somewhere like that—New Zealand First will be dog-tucker. Poor Ron Mark is a good fighting battling man but potentially he will not make it over the line. So there it is. I say to the members of New Zealand First that at least they are consistent. 
Coming back to the point of this legislation I say that none of the members on this side of the Chamber really understands it—because it is wrong. We understand common sense. We understand something that people can support if it makes sense—even if we disagree with it—but this legislation makes no sense. So why would we proceed with something that makes absolutely no sense and that will not prevent one single dog attack will not save one single child like Carolina Anderson and will not do anything except add a whole layer of costs and compliance to the poor old mum in Glenfield with her little poodle and to the farmer out there who has 16 or 18 dogs in one dog kennel? 
I also say that the members of the Green Party ought to be congratulated. Those members took a principled position.