Thursday, May 18, 2006


Jeanette Fitzsimons' Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill was defeated in Parliament last night, losing 60 - 61. I'm not at all displeased by this. Microchipping is a basic means of identifying an animal, like a tag which is harder to lose or remove, and this isn't just something needed by dangerous dogs. The bill would have let all dogs off, which is better on equity grounds than excluding only the dogs of stroppy farmers who believe they're above the law - but I'd rather see them all chipped. Meanwhile, the whole debate is begining to smell increasingly of displacement behaviour, done simply to fill the policy deadlock. No-one can pass substantive policy, so instead they argue over dogs. Its a bit above the petty politics of parking accidents and tennis balls, but not by much.

Meanwhile, Jacqui Dean's Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill was sent to committee on a conscience vote. Hopefully while its there it will be amended to be more like Steve Chadwick's version. While I'm quite happy with the law as it stands, if it is going to be changed, I'd prefer to see it either repealed wholesale or for geographic exemptions to be decided by local communities. Dean's bill OTOH is just special pleading for people in Wanaka.

I have no information on Eric Roy's Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill, but I expect it to have been sent to committee unless MPs are feeling particularly vindictive (and that doesn't really seem to be the mood ATM, at least with Member's Bills).

There will be a ballot today for one more bill; I'll post information on it as it comes to hand.


Great another law that won't change anything and will be ignored by most people.

It's not farmers saying they are above the law but the law makers that are not listening to the people.

Laws like that should be ignored and protested against.

Or do you disagree to that - which would mean that most what you right on your blog is crap.

Labour is full of wankers.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/18/2006 10:59:00 AM

Eric Roy's Bill survived its first reading - the National press release is here:

Posted by Anita : 5/18/2006 01:57:00 PM

You don't seem to understand that the SPCA and the Vets have now managed to rort the system to enrich themselves - and all for further regulations that will not help in any practical way and at an increased cost. Your stance on this is at odds with your general ideas. If you care about govt. abuse you should find out how this law was pushed through in the first place. Was the equipment and design ever tendered for? How much was spent or comitted to be spent before the legislation was passed? Why did the bureaucrats push so hard for it? What companies are involved? What part did the SPCA and Vets Assoc. and the Kennel Clubs play in this - what is their cut? how much do they benefit?

"Microchipping is a basic means of identifying an animal," - no, it is a complicated and unnecessary way that is only available to be put in and to be read and recorded by complicated and costly means.
"like a tag which is harder to lose or remove," - and also impossible for someone without a scanner to determine - thus limiting it's effectiveness. The only people who would care about tags being removed would be those in a better position to have their own dog micro-chipped at their own expense.

Posted by Bomber : 5/18/2006 02:21:00 PM

I heard one of the dog control guys on the radio saying that the main reason they want microchipping is so that dogs which have already been impounded in one area can be identified by other dog control officers throughout the country, and their history accessed through a database. If this is true, then this is quite a good reason to only microchip those dogs which are impounded. It would save a lot of money and still allow a naughty dog's history to be identified.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/18/2006 04:18:00 PM