National eyes chance on dog bill

The National Party is mounting a last-ditch attempt to overturn the Government's controversial move to have all dogs microchipped.

The Government appeared to have averted the possibility of an embarrassing defeat on the issue yesterday when the Greens said they would only support an amendment of the Dog Control Bill which eliminated microchipping entirely.

National had hoped the Greens would support moves by itself and United Future to exempt farm dogs from microchipping, but the Greens' stance cancels out United Future's support for microchipping in general.

However, Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons' statement that the party would support any proposal to scrap microchipping was immediately taken up by National MP David Carter, who said he would put forward such a proposal if the Greens did not.

That will see the focus of lobbying on the issue turn to United Future, who will face strong pressure from National to change their minds and extend their opposition to microchipping farm dogs to the microchipping of all dogs.

"I think United Future now need to realise that if they will not vote for that, they will cause all farm dogs to be microchipped," Mr Carter said.

"If United Future will not support an amendment for all dogs, then the Labour Party still manages to enforce microchipping, so United Future needs to realise the significance of its nonsensical decision, to actually say we don't think microchipping farm dogs is a good idea but we won't vote for an exemption for all dogs."

United Future MP Gordon Copeland said the party did not support overturning microchipping, and was only interested in exempting farm dogs.

The Greens' decision might mean the Government could "come through the middle" and win any vote on the issue.

"It's disappointing news because it will probably mean the amendment that National and ourselves are promoting is not going to make it any more," he said.

"She [Fitzsimons] has really taken the Labour Party line of one law for all dogs and reversed it."

Earlier yesterday the Government strongly lobbied Green MPs to convince them of the merits of microchipping. Ms Fitzsimons said those efforts had failed, with the party unmoved in its belief that microchipping was unlikely to have much effect.

"The other provisions of the Dog Control Bill were much more effective and we supported those.

"We did state at the time that the legislation went through that we were not in favour of microchipping but we didn't vote against the rest of the bill just because that was in it."

The Greens believed it was "all dogs or no dogs" and there was no basis for exempting some.

"A dog is a dog, whether it lives on the farm or in the city," Ms Fitzsimons said.

"To say that grandma's harmless little poodle needs to be microchipped but the farmer's German shepherd doesn't is just ridiculous."

The Maori Party also backs exempting farm dogs, and yesterday said it would like to see the detail of any proposal to exempt all dogs.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said microchipping had been introduced because of public concerns over dog attacks.

"My concern would be that if Parliament no longer wants to go down that track, the next time there's a vicious dog attack on a small child or human being, people are going to say 'Why did Parliament back off?"'


MICROCHIPPING

The new requirement under the Dog Control Bill - to allow instant identification after a dog attack - was framed after a series of attacks, including one on Carolina Anderson who was severely mauled in a central Auckland park in 2003.

Dogs already registered on July 1 do not need to be tagged.

Backers say the success of a nationwide system relied on as many dogs as possible having a tiny microchip inserted under their skin.