Roy Heather: Third Readings 
Roy Heather: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3873] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of this legislation on behalf of the ACT party. As we know this whole debate has focused largely around the first bill on the list of the Order Paper today the Dog Control Amendment Bill. Three years ago in 2003 we had the tragic experience of one little girl who was attacked by a dog. As a result of that there was a knee-jerk reaction from the Government that was not really aimed at treating the cause of the problem but was in fact only an attempt at treating the symptoms. I think it is something of a reassurance today that this House has come at least part of the way towards recognising common sense by amending the Dog Control Amendment Bill. 
ACT has always remained consistent on this matter. We opposed the bill in 2003 for the reasons I outlined during the Committee stage and for the reasons that have been voiced by other parties in the House today. The proceedings have also been reassuring in that they have highlighted one of the strengths of MMP which has also been outlined by the Green Party. Parties particularly small parties from across the political spectrum joined together last night to allow common sense to prevail so that at least some dogs in this country would not have to be microchipped. However the ACT party finds it sad that all the other dogs in this country will have to be microchipped. We have done only part of the job and I hope that in the future we can address the rest of this issue. Unfortunately there were not sufficient numbers in the House last night to do that. But ACT will be supporting this Dog Control Amendment Bill because it goes a long way towards doing the right thing. 
It does not hurt to mention yet again that the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 would not have prevented any attacks and it would not have saved any children’s lives or have prevented them from being mauled or physically maimed for the rest of their lives. That legislation is not a safety measure. It will not save lives; it merely addresses the symptom of the problem not the cause. So it is a shame that since 2003 there has been a huge amount of political distraction around this whole issue. Hopefully the passing of this Dog Control Amendment Bill today will see an end to that. 
Of course there were many other parts to the Local Government Law Reform Bill as it was introduced into the House. It has now been divided into eight separate bills and ACT is taking a variety of stances on those bills. As I said we will be supporting the Dog Control Amendment Bill. We will be supporting two of the other bills—the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill—but we will be opposing the other bills that have been put forward in the omnibus legislation. 
ACT has been very consistent in opposing all local government bills that impose further regulation on local bodies that will in turn be passed on to New Zealanders and that will impose further compliance costs—firstly on local bodies and secondly in turn on New Zealanders. We have always said that people particularly when they are doing things on their own property and are usually making improvements to it should not be impeded by unnecessary regulation and excessive compliance. 
Unfortunately in the past 7 years under this Labour Government we have seen bill after bill after bill doing exactly that to New Zealanders—denying them their freedom and making it harder and harder to take care of and make improvements to their own property. ACT will continue to oppose any measures this Government puts forward in order to do those things. Yet again in some of those bills we have central government imposing more and more regulation on local government authorities too which is unnecessary and creates a further burden on them. That always seems to result in ordinary New Zealanders bearing the brunt of that usually in terms of financial cost. 
I wanted to take just a short call and voice our support for those three bills which are sensible and move in the right direction. In respect of the Dog Control Amendment Bill we would have liked to see a complete abolition of the ridiculous situation where dogs in this country will have to be microchipped. But we will be supporting that bill because it moves at least part of the way in the right direction.