Wilkinson Kate: Third Readings 
Wilkinson Kate: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3880] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking on the Dog Control Amendment Bill I must admit that National’s first preference was to exempt all dogs from microchipping. Our second preference was to at least exempt farm dogs. Microchipping is still dopey and will not stop dog attacks but at least some dogs now are not subject to that stupid law and for that we must be partially thankful. 
I do wonder what it takes for the Government to listen to New Zealanders to listen to local authorities to listen even to Treasury and to listen to common sense. I have to acknowledge the huge support received nationwide for my own petition which was to exempt farm dogs. It got nearly 10500 signatures. Nearly 10500 New Zealanders—dog owners and non - dog owners—petitioned the Government to exempt farm dogs from microchipping. And now they are exempt! Then again over 6500 New Zealanders also signed a petition to exempt all dogs from microchipping but would the Government listen? No chance! We have heard arguments that microchipping is a one-off cost. Listen to this true story from New Zealand First which supported microchipping just like obedient poodles: “Inserting a microchip is a one-off identification for the dog and owner. Therefore microchipped dogs would not need to be registered annually. The annual fee is a hangover from the days of hydatids and is no longer relevant.” 
John Carter 
: Who said that? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: New Zealand First. 
John Carter 
: Ron Mark? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Not Ron Mark. Oh was it Ron Mark? Nothing in the bill says that. The bill is about microchipping and registration. It is not about microchipping instead of registration. It is not about having one lifelong fee. Dogs still have to be registered annually and the registration fee still has to be paid. 
We have heard arguments about the microchip being a lifelong means of identifying the dog and that it involves a one-off visit to the vet. We have also heard about Mr Roy’s friend Hank the 8-year-old Rottweiler that was microchipped at 10 months and later scanned by the vet but the vet could not locate the microchip. In fact the vet said that microchips should be checked every year to ensure that they have not moved and that they are still functioning. So much for a one-off visit and so much for a one-off cost! 
We have heard arguments that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than through a registration tag and collar; that is if one happens to have the appropriate scanner—and the specifications of scanners can vary from country to country. Indeed one needs to get close enough to scan the dog and provided the microchip is where it should be and has not moved or disappeared. What is the point of microchipping a dog to get through the Customs Service and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry at the airport if the ministry does not even have the scanner available to do the check in the first place? 
We have heard arguments about the mess that is now being given to local authorities because of the differentiation between working farm dogs and other dogs. Under the Dog Control Act as all members should have read the definition of a working dog includes any dog that the council so resolves can be a working dog. Any dog or class of dog can now be resolved just by a straightforward resolution of the local authority as a working dog and therefore become exempt from being microchipped. The local authority as my colleague Eric Roy said has the discretion. It has the choice over whether to enable all dogs to be microchipped. 
Microchipping whether of urban dogs or of rural dogs will not stop a dog attack. Microchipping will not turn a dangerous dog into a harmless dog and it will not turn an irresponsible owner into a responsible owner. Those Treasury figures—which this Government does not listen to—suggest that 7 to 8 percent of New Zealand dogs are never registered. Of those unregistered dogs 50 percent are responsible for the dog attacks. Those unregistered dogs are even less likely to be microchipped now. This bill is right and it is wrong and the words of the former MP Michael Bassett apply to the situation. I quoted his words last night but I think they are worth repeating. He said: “Microchipping dogs is a pathetic political distraction to disguise the paralysis that afflicts this government preventing it from doing anything worthwhile.” 
I have to say that even after the passing of this bill that paralysis will still be there and it will still be preventing the Government from doing anything worthwhile. At least now some New Zealanders have been saved from this dopey microchipping law and that is something. The question that still remains is whether the Government is the dog or the fire-hydrant and whether it resides in the Beehive or the “pee-hive”. 
Dog Control Amendment Bill read a third time.