Copeland Gordon: Third Readings 
Copeland Gordon: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3871] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future was of course delighted but I must say extremely surprised that Parliament last night adopted our own party’s position—namely a continuance of the microchipping regime for dogs but with an exemption for working farm dogs. For me personally it has been an interesting 4 months. This debate has aroused passions from one end of our country to the other. Members should look at my in-box some time and see the volume of email I have received from people in every conceivable part of the country. The issue has aroused great passions. That has made me reflect that there is a unique relationship in New Zealand between human beings and their canine friends which is an integral part of our culture. We only have to think of  
Footrot Flats 
 or  
Country Calendar 
 which has been broadcast now for 42 consecutive years or of the dog wars in Northland in the 19th century or in fact of the almost mythical dog that worked with one Mr Mackenzie in the South Island back in the 19th century rustling other people’s sheep. 
When Federated Farmers came to us about 4 months ago seeking an exemption from microchipping for working farm dogs United Future was quickly convinced that working farm dogs—that is dogs trained to work with stock—are actually a different class of dog from other dogs. Why? For a start they are working dogs—not only in the sense that they earn their own keep unlike pet dogs but also in the sense that they make an enormous contribution to the agricultural and particularly pastoral economy of this nation which remains the backbone of our economy. So for that reason alone they come into a special class. Secondly those dogs are on farms. They are away from urban playgrounds parks and streets and certainly not in people’s backyards. And thirdly as I mentioned to the Committee today the figures show they are not involved in the majority of dog attacks—they are 40 percent of dogs but are responsible for just 2 percent of dog-biting attacks as reported to the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
I have no doubt that Parliament has made the right decision because I think that a voluntary regime which is what we now have for farmers and their working dogs is far more likely to succeed than if we had gone ahead and foolishly insisted in the face of a good evidence-based case from Federated Farmers that farmers must microchip their dogs. Now we are saying that they may microchip their dogs and I think that will make a lot of difference. 
I want to thank National ACT the Maori Party and four members of the Green Party for voting with United Future in order to make last night’s result possible. I was greatly disappointed by the attempt by National and the Greens to overturn the microchipping regime. I am glad it has failed. I thought their response to the law that was passed by Parliament 3 years ago with the support of all parties except ACT was simply reactionary. 
I remember being at a meeting in the Waikato with a group of farmers early in May. We were talking about microchipping and they were giving me a pretty hard time to some degree. In the end I said that all we were really talking about was the difference between a collar and a chip. Collars get lost dogs slip their collars and collars wear out and have to be replaced. A microchip put into a puppy on the other hand is there for that dog’s whole life. 
This issue is simply about a new technology. I said earlier the National Party had been reactionary about it. I would have thought the National Party would be progressive in its thinking about new technology. We should have the best system we can for controlling our dogs and if that involves new technology then so be it. I foresee the day maybe a few years from now when we discover we can track a microchip through a Global Positioning System so we are able to see exactly where every microchipped dog is at every moment of every day and every night. That really will be important for this country. We should be a forward-looking country. We should not be frightened to embrace new technology and we should go forward on that basis. 
Microchipping is now to happen and in that regard I want to thank Labour Progressive and New Zealand First for holding fast along with United Future to the concept of a microchipping regime. I really deeply regret the comments that have been made by the Greens in this debate along the lines of saying it is dogs today and will be humans tomorrow. I do not agree with the politics of fear nor with the politics of conspiracy. United Future is a party that believes in the politics of hope and the politics of the potential to release the greatness of New Zealand. For me personally the gulf between dogs and humans is total as it is for my party. Dogs and humans are not the same. Our party is not into speciesism; we actually believe that human beings are unique in their dignity. To suggest that microchipping dogs will somehow lead to microchipping humans is plainly the politics of fear. I have said to a number of people since I have been in Parliament that if I received 10 bucks for every time I heard the Greens bring up the subject of fear in this House then I would be quite a wealthy man. 
At the end of the day I believe Parliament has done well. Let us now come together and keep working to make the playgrounds parks streets and backyards of our country safe. We need to make those places safe for our beautiful children because that after all is what we set out to do 3 years ago. These measures have come in response to the Carolina Anderson attack and in response to an understanding of what happened in New South Wales where there has been a microchipping regime since 1999. 
I would like to mention that Moana Mackey has made a very important contribution to the debate over the last couple of days. It seems that Moana and myself are about the only two MPs here who have actually bothered to find out what has happened in New South Wales. Routinely in New South Wales now as puppies arrive in this world they are immediately microchipped by the breeder. People simply go along and buy a puppy with a microchip in it. There is no hassle. As I have told the House the number of dog attacks has come down from 521 in 1997 to only 167 in 2003. I know that microchipping is worthwhile because fewer children are being attacked by dogs in New South Wales as a result of microchipping. Victoria will follow suit. All we have done is to catch up with the real world. We have got real for once and it has been a really really good outcome. 
With those few words I signal once again that United Future will be voting for the third reading of not only the Dog Control Amendment Bill but also the seven other bills—we will be supporting them all. I must say it has been an enjoyable 4 months as we have got to grips with the very real issue of microchipping.