Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3845] 
4.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Does he support the exemption from microchipping for farm dogs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Agriculture 
: [ 
Interruption 
] And woof to you too! As far as I am aware the exemption passed last night related to working dogs not farm dogs alone. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does he therefore support the exemption for farm dogs and working dogs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Now that the member has learnt to beg correctly I can say the answer is no. I voted for the microchipping of all dogs and voted against the amendment relating to working dogs. 
Hon David Carter 
: How can the Minister credibly claim he represents the interests of New Zealand farmers when last night he voted against the exemption for working farm dogs. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Agriculture took to Cabinet a submission from Federated Farmers in which they stated that the top issue for the farming sector in New Zealand was nothing to do with earnings agricultural products market access or anything else; it was to do with the microchipping of farm dogs. That was the top issue facing agriculture in this country. Mr Anderton did take that to Cabinet but Cabinet reaffirmed its position and Mr Anderton supports that position. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much taxpayer money did the Minister waste sending out  
Primary News 
 to every farmer in New Zealand telling farmers they would have to microchip their dogs; and how arrogant is it of him to presume the wishes of this Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not know how long the member has been here but Ministers have communicated the intentions of Government that require legislation for as long as I have been here and for a lot longer before that. 
Nathan Guy 
: Will his Government learn any lessons from the flip-flops on the “fart tax” the carbon tax and microchipping; and why is the Government proceeding with a series of meetings to force the issue of public access over private land? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Taking the last issue I point out that the Government’s policy is to seek consensus and consent around access across private land. If the member wants to try to heavy farmers to prevent access then that would be very strange indeed particularly where there are designated public roads. 
Craig Foss 
: Is it arrogance or is it just further proof of just how out of touch the Minister is with rural New Zealand that led him to vote against farmers’ wishes last night? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I regard as arrogance is that member going along to the Finance and Expenditure Committee as he did waving his own tax return and asking for answers about why it was dealt with in the way it was—using a parliamentary select committee for his own financial purposes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has just made a very serious accusation. I am sure that no member of the House would do something like that. I think if it is true the member should resign; and if it is not true the Minister should apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not wave my own tax return around in any committee whatsoever yesterday. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With due respect I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and can vouch for the fact that maybe Mr Foss did not wave his tax return around but he definitely told the committee he was speaking about his own taxation situation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. There is another way of handling any contradiction about this matter and it is not in this House; it is in fact to refer the matter by way of complaint. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member had the right to make a personal explanation. He did not seek leave to do that; he just belted it out without so much as a by your leave—and it was wrong for you to have received it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. In fact I do not think there have been any valid points of order so far today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I said in my point of order that what he did was not within the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings. That is a valid point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I have ruled on the matter. The member asked for the comment to be withdrawn and it was withdrawn. As the member may recall that is what happened. The matter was dealt with. When it was raised again I said there is a more appropriate forum for handling that.