Copeland Gordon: General Debate 
Copeland Gordon: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2708] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I remind the House this afternoon that the original intent of Parliament in introducing the microchipping law for dogs was the protection of New Zealand children from dog attacks. I also remind the House that all of the parties in this House with the single exception of ACT voted in favour of the new microchipping regime. That included the Green Party and the National Party. Those facts seem to have been lost sight of in recent days when we have seen some real flip-flops in their positions. I say that that was the intent of the microchipping law and I liken it to the attempts of Parliament over many years to reduce the road toll. If we can take a step as a Parliament to protect New Zealand children from dog attacks then we should do so. That was what we had in mind a couple of years ago when we put the legislation in place. 
Having said that I want to say immediately however that United Future supports an exemption from microchipping for working farm dogs. We support an exemption for two reasons. First of all 40 percent of all dogs in New Zealand are working farm dogs but dog attacks on farms constitute about 2 percent of all the dog attacks in New Zealand. In other words 40 percent of our dogs are working farm dogs but they are responsible for less than 2 percent of the dog attacks that occur on a daily basis in this country. Second I draw the House’s attention to the fact that in New South Wales there has been a microchipping regime for about 7 years in which all applicable dogs are microchipped. But in that state where about 28 percent of all dogs are farm dogs working farm dogs are excluded from the regime. 
Accordingly the position that United Future has on this matter is one of principle. It addresses the real issue which is the 98 percent of dog attacks that are committed by non - working farm dogs and has regard to the reality that those attacks occur within urban communities and not on farms. Let us not forget that all of this happened after a dog attack occurred in an urban community on little Carolina Anderson. I was here in Parliament when people from Auckland and other parts of New Zealand came here in big numbers. They said we must address the issue and make the streets of New Zealand’s cities and towns safer for children when it comes to attacks from dogs. 
We do not resile from our support for the principle of a microchipping regime. Nor will we just because the Greens have done a massive backflip. They informed the press of this country 24 hours ago that they supported an exemption for working farm dogs and then last night they went and said that no it was all or nothing and they opposed microchipping in total. That is illogical and not a good example— 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Copeland is making a serious misrepresentation of the facts of the Green Party position. What is your advice as to how we can remedy that misrepresentation in the House as it misleads this House and may bring the House into disrepute? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I suggest to the member that what we have is a debating matter and misrepresentation must follow from the speech of the member. If he is misrepresenting what the member previously said that is a different matter. If not then it is a debating matter. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Nor will we resile from our position on the microchipping of dogs with the exception I mentioned of working farm dogs just because the National Party has decided to jump on the Greens’ bandwagon by abandoning in total the requirement to improve safety for children in our towns and cities in this country. I think that is a disgraceful action. 
National has chosen to go with a narrow interest group. United Future supports the farmers—I have made that very clear—and that is what our amendment aims to do. But to do that at the cost of abandoning the children in our towns and cities is just not acceptable to United Future. We will therefore persevere with our Supplementary Order Paper to exempt farm dogs from microchipping and we will not in any circumstances join with the Greens and National in trying to repeal the regime in total. 
My advice to the Greens and National is simply this. You do not have the numbers to repeal this legislation. Therefore if you are sincere in your intentions you should at least go— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I beg your pardon Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise for that. But my advice to the Green and National parties is that they as parties knowing that they do not now have the numbers to repeal the microchipping legislation should go back to the position they had 24 hours ago. The National Party has already said it will support an exemption for farm dogs. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it has said that today publicly and the Greens should do the same thing. That would mean that we are back to where we were and New Zealand gets a good outcome. We must keep in mind the two realities that we are endeavouring to protect children from dog attacks and that farm dogs by and large are not involved in those attacks.