Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3793] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 We are debating Part 1 and in particular microchipping. Microchipping is not the only measure in this part—it includes some good things—but it is primarily about microchipping. The point is that in a debate in the House the proposer—in this case the Government plus its supporters: New Zealand First United Future in this case and Jim Anderton’s Progressive party or whatever it is called—should be able to put up good cogent arguments to persuade Opposition members that our point of view is wrong. I have to say that in the 2 hours or so we have been debating this bill I have not heard one argument of substance that would convince me or any of the listeners who are against microchipping that we are wrong and the Government is right. 
The Minister took a call some time last night and said that one of the main reasons why we want to microchip dogs is so that when a dog is found worrying stock and the farmer shoots the dog we will be able to identify the owner of the dog as a consequence of its being microchipped. That is true; I have no argument with that. If we assume that the dog has been microchipped—because if there is a dog attack on stock it is likely that a good number of the dogs that attack stock will not necessarily be microchipped anyway as they are likely to be pig dogs or some other sort of dog owned by people who would not necessarily register or microchip their dogs—and if the farmer shoots the dog we can identify the owner. The question I have is that if the same dog is registered with a tag on it why can we not identify the owner? When a dog is dead what makes microchipping better able to identify it than if it has a collar? The Minister will say it is because the dog is microchipped and it does not have a collar. Well of course if we microchip dogs we are not going ask that they have a collar also but one assumes that if a person is responsible enough to put a microchip in a dog he or she will be responsible enough to put a collar and tag on the dog as is required now. So that puts away that argument. 
I have been listening now for the best part of 2 hours expecting to hear better arguments. The only argument I have heard is that microchipping means we can identify the owners of dogs that are shot if they worry and kill stock. Well if that is the only reason then we really have to ask ourselves what we are doing debating this. The Minister of Local Government the Hon Mark Burton said in his second reading speech that microchipping will not stop one dog attack. Indeed New Zealand First members have said exactly the same thing. Gordon Copeland of United Future has also said exactly the same thing—that microchipping in itself will not stop one dog attack. Therefore the only reason to have microchipping is not to stop dog attacks because we have all agreed—everyone so far: the Minister on behalf of Labour New Zealand First United Future—that microchipping will not stop dog attacks. We are all agreed on that; the whole Parliament agrees on that. Therefore the next thing is it must be all about identifying dogs. Well if it is about identifying dogs then one asks oneself the question what is wrong with a dog collar and a tag? Will we get more people microchipping their dogs and will we be able to read the microchip and identify the dog more easily than if it has a collar and tag? Actually the answer to that question is that all the evidence everywhere says no it will not happen. 
If the Minister had been able to stand up and give us proof that by microchipping dogs we can identify the dog and the owner more easily and if microchipping had been more practical and sensible and more people were encouraged by it then the National Party members might have been persuaded by that argument. But actually that has not happened. In fact we know that the only way one can read a microchip on a long-haired dog is by grabbing it sticking it between one’s legs and waving the wand over it. I have to tell members that I do not want to know the owner of a dog that badly—I seriously do not. There are parts of my anatomy that I would not want to put a dog’s head near thank you very much. So I will not be waving any sort of wand—mine or anyone else’s quite honestly—over a dog to identify its microchip.