Smith Nick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14116] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 These 25 clauses in Part 2 deal with the Dog Control Act and it is somewhat amazing that only 12 months after the Minister put through changes in the dog control legislation Parliament is dealing with not one mistake two mistakes or three mistakes but 25 areas in which we are having to rewrite this Minister’s legislation. Earlier in the debate the Minister said: “It is not my fault. It is all Sandra Lee’s. That is why there was a mess with the local government law.” Well the Minister cannot pass the buck in respect of the Dog Control Act. It was entirely this Minister’s doing. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister pleads guilty. I would like to know from the Minister for legislation that has been in force for only— 
Government Member 
: No that’s the guilty member—before the court. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it is the Government’s dirty work and it wants to relitigate that. It did not have the courage when I offered a by-election in Nelson. It did not want to contest. It was quite happy to have the argument in the High Court but did not want to have the debate with the people of Nelson. Those are the sorts of wimps on the Government benches. 
But this is a Minister who has pleaded guilty to having the— 
Government Member 
: Who was challenging the decision? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Sorry—what does the Minister want to talk about? Does he want to debate family law? Does the member want to debate family law? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the member losing his hearing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Does the member want to have a debate about family law? I would be delighted to have a debate about family law and the huge changes the Government has now conceded should be made in that area and it is nice to know that one can win an argument. 
I want to talk about the—[ 
Interruption 
] What a pathetic bunch on the Government benches. This is a law to do with dog control and they want to interject about everything else but the legislation. The 25 clauses of this part make a whole series—[ 
Interruption 
] Do I have to put up with this crap Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the member does not. I am warning those who are interjecting that if they interject again they will be out of this Chamber. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The provisions in these 25 clauses are a patch-up job on the dog control legislation that the Minister advanced and there are a number of things that National disagrees with. 
The first of those is with regard to the compulsory microchipping of dogs. As my colleague Phil Heatley pointed out earlier in the debate what sort of control freaks are there in the Government that they want to have every single dog in New Zealand microchipped? That is the policy being advanced by Chris Carter. It is a huge expense for the ratepayers and dog owners of New Zealand. It is not a good policy move and we think the Minister should admit that—as with so many other things he has got wrong—the provision should be changed. 
The second area I want to challenge the Minister on is why within 12 months of prescribing fines for dog offences the Government has to change them and third why the Government is not prepared to trust local councils to determine the appropriate fines for dog offences. Why is it necessary for this Parliament to prescribe the fines that should apply in dog-related offences up and down New Zealand? Surely it is enough for Parliament simply to say: “Look your council can set fines up to 1000 bucks. You describe the offences. You apply the fines at the level at which you think they are going to be the most effective enforcement tools in your particular area.” rather than have schedule 4 in this bill which sets out every individual fine that will be provided. I just think it is so rich for the Government to rave on all the time particularly this Minister: “We trust councils. We believe in the power of general competence.” Councils can best judge for their communities. But when it comes to setting fines over something as small as dog control we say it is unnecessary to have to prescribe that in Parliament. We say it should not be done and we oppose that provision. The last question I have for the Minister is do we have any definitive figures yet as to what it will cost the average dog owner with regard to the Minister’s mad plan of microchipping every dog in New Zealand? We were given widely varying figures at the select committee. I think that before Parliament makes a decision we need to know the cost.