Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2521] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I should signal at the beginning that United Future will support the first reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. In particular I shall talk about two reasons why I believe this bill to be important. The first is one that has already been touched on by the Hon David Carter in relation to the microchipping of dogs. As we now know the question of whether all dogs should be microchipped has now been considered by Cabinet not once but twice. 
In response to questions in the House about whether working farm dogs should be exempted the Hon Nanaia Mahuta came up with a very humorous line—namely that there should be one law for all dogs. It is a good line and it certainly raised a degree of humour in the House. But we need to analyse whether that is a satisfactory response and I believe it is not. Let me just mention a few things to the House. First of all we can categorise between different breeds of dogs. The original intention of microchipping arose out of the heightened concern in the community about dangerous dog attacks when Carolina Anderson was attacked in Auckland. It was in that atmosphere that we decided to microchip all dogs. But if one says to a person: “Take a Labrador dog that is trained to be a guide dog for a blind person and put that dog alongside a Rottweiler or a pit bull are there in fact different categories of dogs?”. They will all say: “Yes of course there are.” From that point of view I also believe working farm dogs to be in a different category. 
Farm dogs are in a different category from another point of view as well and that is the attacks that we were concerned about on children and other people from savage breeds of dogs such as pit bulls and variations thereof occur mainly in suburban areas and we were particularly worried about attacks in Auckland. When it comes to working farm dogs Garrick Tremain’s cartoon which was well discussed on talkback radio last week in New Zealand hit the nail on the head. The cartoon shows a group of dogs in the back of a ute and the first dog says: “We’re going to be microchipped in case we bite anybody when we’re in town.” The second dog says: “But when are we ever in town?” and the third dog says: “Well we have to go to town in order to get the chip.” In other words working farm dogs do not in the normal course of events get to go to town very often. Therefore from that point of view too they are much less dangerous than the dogs we had in mind that are roaming the streets of South Auckland. 
A third factor that I bring to the attention of the House is a new piece of information. The Veterinary Association came to see me yesterday and it praised highly the microchipping regime in the state of New South Wales in Australia. It told me that that regime has been going for 7 years which is about how long it will take our regime when it starts on 1 July this year to achieve its goal of microchipping dogs. That is because of course on 1 July only puppies and new registrations are affected and the average dog lives about 7 years. So about 7 years from now most of our dogs will be microchipped with the exception that I want for working farm dogs. 
The Veterinary Association said that microchipping had been a great success in New South Wales. It spoke very very highly of the outcome. It has been successful in controlling dogs and anecdotally although it is hard to prove a negative the number of dog attacks on children and other people has gone down. However here is a significant thing. In New South Wales farm working dogs—dogs used primarily for the purpose of droving tending working or protecting stocks and dogs being trained to be working dogs—are exempt from microchipping. The regulation in New South Wales goes on to state: “However these dogs are valuable animals and owners are encouraged to have their dogs microchipped and registered for the dog’s own protection.” 
The Hon David Carter has already said that during the Committee stage I intend to move an amendment to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping. That is what I intend to do but I also want to put in my amendment a provision that is similar to that of New South Wales such as: “However we encourage farmers to microchip their dogs because they are valuable animals and it will also help them to control their dogs.” I think that that is the right message to give New Zealand farmers. What they are objecting to is compulsory unnecessary microchipping of a special category of dog. That is because it is an unnecessary cost and farmers say that they are already up to their necks in legislation and red tape. That is their fundamental objection. We should look at it from a common-sense point of view. We will get more working farm dogs microchipped in New Zealand if we say it is a voluntary registration but we encourage them to do so. I think that that is the way forward and I will move an amendment along those lines at the appropriate time. That of course is all to do with the amendments to the Dog Control Act 1966 that are proposed in this bill. 
I also want to talk on a quite different subject and that is the amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. Part 8 of the bill brings in definitions and enforcement regulations in respect of what are now called “special vehicle lanes” on New Zealand roads. When the bill was first drawn to United Future’s attention by Dr Michael Cullen the Leader of the House mention was made of bus-only lanes. In Auckland in particular both the local authority and Transit New Zealand want to have a legal framework to enforce bus-only lane regulations. At the moment that is not there and that is what this bill will do. Immediately I drew it to Dr Cullen’s attention and eventually also to the attention of the Minister of Local Government the Hon Mark Burton and I will also write to the select committee to say that a parallel situation has also arisen on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 out of Wellington. 
The situation on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 is a very interesting one. Basically the highway has been four-laned through the township of Paremata. It is called the Mana Esplanade but I refer to it as Paremata. Most people know it as the township of Paremata. What happens there is that at peak hours of the day only vehicles carrying two or more people are permitted in the left-hand lane. So a person travelling in a car on his or her own is not permitted to go in that lane. That is the first thing. So it is a “two or more people only lane” during peak hours. However during non-peak periods people are allowed to park in that lane. That situation which is novel and innovative—and I think the intention was good; it was introduced to speed up the congestion on State Highway 1—is of course fraught with a number of difficulties. For example a truck with two or more people in it that is whizzing along that lane at peak times may suddenly find a parked car in the way. The driver may not be able to brake and may have to swerve to the right into a lane that is completely bumper to bumper with cars at peak hour. There have already been some nicks and bumps but a really serious accident is waiting to happen. 
As this bill goes through the select committee process it is very important that the opportunity is taken to also ensure that the Porirua City Council and Transit New Zealand have enforcement ability around those rules for those lanes. I might say as an aside to the Porirua City Council and Transit that I think they probably have to do more to make it very very clear to people going through the Mana Esplanade exactly what the rules are. For example I went through on Saturday and I noticed a sign that said something about Monday to Friday then there was another bit that referred to Sundays and public holidays. I was there on a Saturday and I had no clear indication what the rules are for Saturdays. So I think there is also some more work to be done around the signage and so forth to make the system work but I will as I mentioned write to the members of the select committee and ask them to make sure that this bill will cover that situation. It may now do so because I note when I look at the bill as opposed to the initial draft we were given—the initial draft as I mentioned referred to bus-only lanes—that it now refers to special vehicle lanes which presumably would cover the situation on the Mana Esplanade. With those remarks I am happy to say that United Future will support the first reading of this bill and I look forward to it coming back to the House in due course. 
I would also like to say a few words at this stage to New Zealand First and the Greens. I ask them to please consider carefully the situation of exempting working farm dogs from microchipping. I also include the Maori Party in that as I understand it may be sympathetic to that ideal as well. There is an example of that in New South Wales where people have said that it has worked extremely well. So why do we not give it a try? If some time in the future we find that yes we do need every single dog microchipped regardless we can always do that later. But it seems to me that we should start with a voluntary registration for working farm dogs which by the way are already defined as being dogs that are specifically trained to work with sheep and cattle. That is already in the Act. Therefore I ask those parties to give consideration to supporting the amendment at the appropriate time.