Parker David: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Parker David: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9753] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I was lucky enough to chair the Local Government and Environment Committee when it considered the amendments to the Dog Control Act and I thank members from all sides on that committee who cooperated to produce what is I think quite a good piece of proposed legislation. 
The committee was conscious—as is the Government—of the need to balance the rights of dog owners against the rights of the general public to be properly protected to the extent that it is possible from any nuisance and risk posed by dogs particularly in public places. The legislation goes some way to improving that balance. As the previous speaker said one of the problems with universal rules imposed at central government level is that the interests of densely populated areas where there is high density housing and high numbers of people are a bit different to the interests of councils in rural areas where populations are pretty thinly spread and the problems posed by dogs are not the same. So imposing universal solutions at a central government level can lead either to over-regulation for territories that are rural in nature or to under-regulation for areas where we do not want concentrations of large dogs wandering freely in the streets in city areas. What we have done with this legislation is find the appropriate balance. 
One of the proposals that was rightly put up for consideration was whether there should be a right of free access to the door from the street on all properties on which there is a dog. This arose from concerns in some south Auckland neighbourhoods in particular where there have been reports of posties not being able to deliver letters and also concerns on the part of meter readers. We did give consideration as to whether that was appropriate. Balanced against that was the right of property owners to let dogs roam around their sections to not have the cost of fencing to the front door and to be able to feel more secure about their properties because their dogs are wandering around the entire property. In the end the committee thought that while it is every person’s right to have a dog wandering around his or her property it is not every person’s right to have a dangerous dog wandering around that property. To the extent that people have a right in law—unless it is taken away by the landowner everyone has a right to approach the front door of a house that one is visiting—we thought that that right carried with it the right for people to be able to expect that any dogs on the property would not be dangerous. In cases of dangerous dogs on properties the local authority should be able to require that there be a fenced way to the door. In the end we have not imposed an obligation or suggested that one be imposed to provide a dog-free fenced access to the front door for all properties. However that requirement will remain in the case of a dangerous dog. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The next issue I wish to talk about is the proposal to microchip dogs. Microchip technology has become a lot cheaper over the years and these days it is commonly used by farmers particularly in the dairy industry. As it has become more cost-effective it has become a technology that is open to being used on dogs. It would assist in the tracking of dogs particularly when they go from one district to another or are let out without their collars. If a dog attacks stock and does not have its collar on it is hard for farmers to pin responsibility on the errant owner because they cannot prove ownership of the dog. 
There was a divided view in the committee as to whether microchipping dogs should be compulsory for all councils which would be progressively applied to all new registrations—it was not proposed that it be applied to dogs that had previously been registered. The Labour side favoured compulsory microchipping but there was some diffidence on the other side so there was a split view on that in the committee. The Labour Party still favours compulsory microchipping. In that scenario the Government would bear the cost of establishing a national database on which all registration details including individual microchip identifiers would be entered. If that were achieved then over the next 10 to 15 years all dogs would progressively be fitted with a microchip as new dogs were born and registered. 
Lastly I wish to make reference to fines. Some fines for serious offences and deliberate wrongdoing have been increased as have maximum penalties but we took the step that was recommended by some councils of reducing some infringement fee fines so that they were not too onerous and were more proportionate to the offence that occurred. Therefore they are more likely to be imposed by councils rather than being seen as overkill by councils. We also made it clear that those infringement fees when collected would stay in the hands of the council that had done the enforcement work rather than passing into the Government’s coffers. Those are the points I wanted to make and I thank again the committee members who assisted.