Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3836] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow on from my colleague John Carter who also played an important role in what has occurred in the Committee tonight. He was extolling the rest of the team but we should acknowledge him too. I also acknowledge the Greens. The Greens came into the debate on microchipping from a point of principle that I totally agreed with—that microchipping is nonsense and we ought to get rid of it per se. But the Greens instead of taking an intransigent position when at the 11th hour it looked like there would be no progress said: “Let’s go for a small gain.”—at least some of their members said that. I acknowledge the way in which those Green members must have discussed that and come to a decision. The Greens’ principle was right: microchipping is nuts and we should have defeated it. That is the position that the Greens took and I understand that. I also acknowledge and place on record the movement that some of the Green members made in order to make some progress. 
This legislation is similar to that of an omnibus bill. It deals with a whole lot of things. Largely microchipping of dogs has been the area about which there has been debate. That is because the Government’s position on dog microchipping has been symbolic of a lot of errors it has made in terms of local authorities costs and prescriptive rules that have applied difficulties to local authorities. So microchipping is perhaps not the biggest cost issue out there but it is one that is synonymous with an infringement on cost and on people’s rights. More significantly microchipping will not do a jolly thing to stop the problem of dogs biting people and particularly children. 
In seeing this as a summary debate I make the following point. The Hon Damien O’Connor made a point that I totally agree with. He said we ought to be shooting or destroying dogs that bite people. He was not to know that I had a Supplementary Order Paper that proposed we should do precisely that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We do that now. 
ERIC ROY 
: It would be a mandatory requirement for any dog that bit a child to be destroyed—no ifs no buts no maybes. If Lianne Dalziel is so enthusiastic about that provision why did she not vote in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper? The attack on Carolina Anderson was a tragedy and we should be doing something about it. But it worries me that after 2 days of debate and several days of hearing submissions in the select committee we have not come up with a solution that deals with dogs that savage children—we have not done that as a Parliament. In that respect the Government must take some responsibility. It has frittered around with a microchipping bill that will not do anything to resolve the problem. 
In the debates earlier on I made a point that I want to make again. On 1 July we will start microchipping those dogs that are registered from 1 July. The life of a dog is variable. I gave examples of dogs I have had and owned that have reached 19 years of age. I currently have a dog that is 17. In the year 2025 there will still be dogs that are not microchipped in the urban area even if we get 100 percent compliance. I have to ask how realistic it is to say this will be a tool of effectiveness. 
We had a lot of examples of the efficacy of the microchip itself. People have a completely false understanding of what this is about. What we do to cattle beasts or sheep is put a transponder on their eartags. It is about the size of a thimble or a 20c piece; it is something that has a bit of substance and yes it can be read from a distance. But what are the chances of finding and reading a microchip that is the size of a grain of rice—7 millimetres by 1.5 millimetres—and buried under the thick skin on a large rough of some dog? The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that some of the microchips are not reliable and do not last very long at all. Those illustrations were given in the select committee yet the Government forged ahead. So the microchipping of dogs was a principle around this local government law reform that just said that much of what this Government has done in loading costs and prescriptive behaviour on to local authorities is inappropriate.