Editorial: Pain in the neck for all parties

Microchip insertions may be a pain in the neck for dogs but the Prime Minister will not quickly forget the prick she suffered for the cause this week.

When Nandor Tanczos voted for a National Party amendment to exempt farm dogs from the microchip bill, he dealt the Government a rare defeat.

It has, of course, recovered as quickly as a dog when the needle is withdrawn but it will not forget the hurt. It was only a few weeks ago that Mr Tanczos, a contender for the Greens' co-leadership, and Russel Norman, the chosen co-leader, were vowing to put the party in a more independent position. Labour cannot help but regard the minor microchip revolt as a warning of what might happen on matters closer to its heart.

The Greens were opposed to any compulsory microchipping, arguing that it was Orwellian and pointless if the intention was to prevent attacks on people. But they had assured Labour that while they would not vote for the bill, they would not support partial exemptions such as National proposed.

If this position defied logic it was nevertheless the sort of quiet deal that allied parties in Parliament use to maintain the illusion of independence.

Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons was stung even more sharply than Helen Clark when four of her five fellow MPs voted with National.

Three appear to have had a dispensation to vote in line with their real views (that half a loaf is better than a whole one you don't want). Three would not have allowed the farm dog exemption to pass. But when a fourth, Mr Tanczos, decided to join them, it tipped the balance.

Mr Tanczos looks more rebellious than he is. He says he realised only at the last minute that the defeat of National's amendment would not open the way for the Greens to move a motion to repeal microchipping altogether. So he voted for a semi-repeal in effect. The exemption of "working dogs", defined as dogs that work with stock, and "companion dogs" rips a big enough rent in the legislation to make it unworkable.

One district dog control officer has described the half-measure as ludicrous and that view will no doubt be echoed by all of those supposed to enforce it. If there was any purpose to getting under the skin of pets, it can only be bureaucratic.

And bureaucracy abhors exceptions. Many a dog might escape the net claiming companion status, if only because the claim would be inordinately time-consuming to check.

The unfortunate party in all of this are the victims of dog attacks, past and future, who deserve a more effective antidote. Micro-chipping was seized on by a Government anxious to be seen to do something in response to the maiming of a child in an Auckland park a few years ago. The dogs in that incident and their owners were dealt with suitably by the law. The case was well-enough publicised that dog owners took note and we hope people generally became more likely to call their local control officer when they saw a dog causing concerns.

Short of banning certain breeds and licensing owners, both of which are easier said than done, it is hard to see what more might be practical. But that is no reason to enact pointless law for the sake of appearances.

Bills introduced for no good reason have a way of turning on their authors. The Government has had difficulty rounding up support for this measure from the start and must now wish it had quietly withdrawn it before it was torn to shreds on Wednesday. The result can only be described as a dog's breakfast.