Williamson Maurice: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2526] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to speak specifically on Part 8 of this bill but first I want to say a little about dog microchipping because I sit here in this House in almost a delirious state not quite believing what people are saying. I hear people say that because of the dreadful attack on Carolina Anderson we can microchip dangerous dogs and prevent that from happening again. 
That is about as logical as what I heard from Pete Hodgson today in respect of the Kyoto Protocol. Basically he said if we send a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians under the Kyoto Protocol it will mean the weather will be better. Well why do we not send a cheque for two billion dollars order some really good weather and ask for really neat sunny summers—great weather for the beach—or a cheque for three billion dollars and have the best weather the world has ever had and then all the tourists would come here? What nonsense! Sending a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians will not change the weather one drop—not one drop. But that is what Pete Hodgson said. He said the Russians have decreased their emissions so we should send a billion dollars to them. The Russians have already done that; their emissions decreased because their whole economy collapsed. 
So when it comes to dog microchipping can a single member of this House tell me that because a dog happens to have a microchip in it there will be no further attacks? First of all we know that the real mongrel ratbag dogs out there will not be microchipped. If any member in this House wants to come with me and the dog control officer to the Mongrel Mob headquarters in Otara knock on the door and say: “Hello boys we’ve come to microchip your dog.” I want to see them do it. We know that the real ratbag dogs will not get touched. They are only a small percentage of the dog population but they are the ones that will normally be out in a park off a leash and attacking the Carolina Andersons of this world. 
But I found out something interesting the other week about dog microchipping. With these microchips we actually have to touch the fur of the dog with the scanner to read the microchip. So if we are in the park and we see in the distance a vicious Rottweiler race up attack a little girl and take a big chunk out of her we will have to run after the dog scanner in hand and try to catch it. We know this new regime is in place now and the dog is definitely microchipped; we just have to catch the little ratbag hold it down and run the scanner over its fur and we will find out who the owner is. 
 In this situation two outcomes can happen. First of all the dog can run faster than the dog catcher and that is normally the case or if we do happen to be fast enough or if there are enough of us to pin this ratbag dog down and hold it then bugger me it will be the one that did not get microchipped after all because it was owned by the Mongrel Mob or whoever. So how will that regime help anybody? How does that help anyone? 
Instead of the Labour Government going on about how this is a good measure and how we will have a database and we will keep records I want one member of the Labour Government to explain how having a microchip inside the most well-behaved dogs owned by good dog owners will help. All of those people out there who are law-abiding citizens—who keep their guns in a special cupboard the bolt action in another cupboard the ammunition in another drawer and it is all locked away and who keep their gun licences up to date according to the gun laws—are the same people who will have their dogs microchipped because they do not want to break the law. How will that stop the rotten Rottweiler or the various other vicious breeds that we know of from attacking? 
I do not think there is such a thing as a bad dog; it is just the way it has been treated and been brought up. If it is beaten kicked and so on it becomes savage. That dog will not be microchipped—and microchipping will not stop another Carolina Anderson being attacked. 
So Labour is doing this which is its standard trick. This is its big flagship legislation. It says it is on the side of those poor kids who are going to get attacked by vicious dogs. There is not a member in this House who is on the other side of that argument or who says: “I reckon I support vicious dogs attacking little girls in parks and ripping pieces off them.” But what we do say on the Opposition benches is let us put up something that will work. Let us put up something that is sensible. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Well what’s your proposal? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I have a proposal for the failed previous member for Napier straightaway and it is to support an amendment to get rid of compulsory microchipping for all dogs. I believe this provision should be removed for all dogs; it will not do anything. 
I heard Gordon Copeland talking about the Garrick Tremain cartoon. I think Garrick Tremain is one of the greatest cartoonists this country has ever produced. I think he is spectacular. I love his cartoons even when they are at my expense. The cartoon the other day which should be put on billboards all around the country showed a ute being driven down the road with three farm dogs on the back. Listen to what they said. One said: “We’re off to town to get microchipped so that we don’t bite children when we’re in the town.” The second dog said: “But when do we ever go to town?”. The third dog said: “Well we go when we go to get microchipped.” How bizarre is that? I know of a number of farm dogs whereby the only time they go to town will be when they go to be microchipped. But I have been diverted. 
I wanted to speak about Part 8 “Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998”. I feel just as passionately about this. There are members of this House who will remember back to the good old days when local authorities like Invercargill city or in my case Tamaki had a traffic enforcement unit. The Tamaki Borough Council had its own enforcement unit so did Mount Albert. The public’s view when surveyed was that those units were little Gestapo units out of control who made their own rules to suit themselves. They were rapacious revenue collectors because they were collecting it into their own coffers. 
The public said they would have much more faith if traffic enforcement duties were put into a centralised unit such as in those days the traffic cops or more important—after the merger—to the New Zealand Police. I am one who has faith that the New Zealand Police would act more sensibly more carefully and more properly in performing that duty. I would prefer that to giving traffic enforcement duties to local authorities and—wait for it—to Transit New Zealand as this bill will do. 
Anybody who knows how Transit is behaving in this country at present will be outraged. Transit has taken it on itself to become the de facto regulator of development. Transit is regularly saying so to a whole range of developers up and down the country. I got a couple of cases yesterday from Owen McShane that are classics. A man has decided to expand the kiwifruit orchard he owns. He has bought some land next door and he is expanding his orchard to grow some more kiwifruit. He has the kiwifruit up and running and now he has applied for consent to build a big packing shed. The local authority says it is OK the regional council says it is OK everyone says it is OK even the neighbours are fine but Transit has said no—he cannot build a packing shed on his kiwifruit orchard because he will be driving his truck on Transit’s roads. 
Eric Roy 
: What? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is what Transit said that he would be driving his truck on Transit’s roads. 
Another case Owen McShane brought up yesterday involves a guy who has quite a nice small private hotel. He has decided because he is doing such good business for tourism and so on that he would like to add on some rooms. Transit again is the de facto controller of growth. I would have thought that this House was looking for economic growth. 
Helen Clark wants us to be in the top half of the OECD. We will be lucky to be last in the OECD if Transit keeps doing what it is doing. Now with this legislation we will be giving Transit the power to issue infringement notices. But wait—there is more. 
Transit will not only have the power to issue infringement notices it will also have the power to retain some of the money it gets from that. Can members see Transit saying each year: “Oh boy the blowout in the budget for roading is so bad and the Ministers have cut our budget. I know what we will do. We will just get out there and issue a whole lot more tickets and in that way we can get our roading revenue back.”? 
I am totally opposed to that. Law enforcement should stay with the law enforcement agency—that is the New Zealand Police. If people are abusing traffic lanes the police should be pinging them. If the Government wants to do something about increasing resources for the police to do so I will listen with great interest and with great care. But when it comes to enforcement I do not want to see the tentacles of the State being pushed further and further out to unaccountable bodies like Transit—and Transit is totally unaccountable. One might say that there is some accountability in the case of local authorities but try working through one’s elected councillors to get anything changed. They just say: “Oh I give up. The full-time bureaucrats within the place run it.” 
For that reason alone I take issue with this whole Part 8 which extends the definition of which particular authority can issue infringement offences. This provision extends it to Transit New Zealand which I believe is now so out of control that the Minister should sack the entire board right now. I will not rest easy in bed at night knowing that Transit has the ability to start issuing infringement notices.