Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3644] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 If National members think that 300000 people finding they may be eligible for a rates rebate of up to $500 as at 1 July is a trivial thing then that shows where their priorities are. They are certainly not with the good citizens of New Zealand—certainly not with the ratepayers of New Zealand. The Government is committed to a close and collaborative working relationship with local government and we certainly value and treasure our investment and our combined effort in that regard. 
I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for their hard work on the Local Government Law Reform Bill—to Steve Chadwick and her team I say thank you. I would also like to thank the officials the select committee clerks and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who met tight deadlines to ensure that the bill could be reported back here today in the second reading. 
To a large extent I really want to focus my comments on my particular interest around the amendments made to the Dog Control Act 1996 which are covered in Part 1. As reported back that part makes a number of changes designed to improve the administration of the Act and to better reflect the intentions of provisions in the original legislation. We support those changes which include the committee’s recommendations relating to entry into houses for enforcement purposes. They provide further tools and powers for dog control officers to be able to effectively achieve the objectives of the Act. 
The committee has also made some useful changes relating to the definition of “disability assist dogs” which means that all the types of dogs listed in that definition—guide dogs companion dogs epilepsy assist dogs—are entitled to enter public places and to travel on planes and buses for example. So that is a good thing. The system for approving new types of disability assist dogs is now much simpler as a result of the committee’s changes. Now new types are added to the list by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Local Government after consultation with the Minister for Disability Issues—and that is as it should be. Changes have also been made to the schedule of infringement offences and fines in order to fill some gaps in the current Act and as a result of some of the gaps identified by submitters as additional suggestions. 
These changes will enhance the existing comprehensive package of dog control measures aimed at improving drug control and public safety around dogs. However the select committee also recommended an amendment that we believe would severely undermine the effectiveness of these changes which are aimed at ensuring more responsible dog ownership and improving public safety. That amendment proposes to replace universal microchipping with microchipping for only dangerous or menacing dogs. 
All dogs have the capacity to bite. Only a small proportion of dogs would be classified as dangerous because of their breed or menacing because of their behaviour. It is the Government’s view that a comprehensive microchipping regime covering all dogs is the best way to identify dogs and their owners. I reiterate that all dogs have the capacity to bite and the Government does not agree with that amendment recommended by the select committee. 
We acknowledge that microchipping by itself is not able and was never intended to stop dog attacks—just as the current system of having a collar and dog tag will not stop a dog biting. But when used in conjunction with a full range of strengthened dog control measures such as the national dog database enhanced powers to seize dogs and tougher penalties for irresponsible dog owners the full benefits of microchipping will be felt and will continue to have effect over time. 
The value of microchipping is that it is a simple permanent and reliable way of identifying dogs and linking them to particular owners thus making it easier for councils to keep track of lost stolen roaming menacing or dangerous dogs. Microchipping also allows councils to take effective action against an owner in the event of a dog attack as part of enforcing that owner’s responsibilities. Good owners are responsible—and that means taking full responsibility for a dog’s behaviour. This measure will also mean better dog owner education and in the case of badly behaved dogs that may bite there will be strengthened enforcement provisions to hold dog owners to account so that overall public safety can be improved. 
Microchipping means that people will be less likely to sell or give away a dog without the new owner being aware of the dog’s history. Microchipping will make it harder for people to pass off someone else’s dog as their own. Lost dogs will be more readily connected with their owners. Owners of microchipped dogs including collarless dogs that have been seized after attacking people or stock will be more easily identified and have enforcement provisions applied to them. 
Having an integrated national dog database means that councils can share information about problem dogs easily and identify roaming animals that may be from outside their areas or districts. Farmers would benefit from the greater likelihood of tracing and taking action against owners of dogs involved in attacks on stock. Speaking anecdotally many of those attacks involve registered dogs that are not wearing their collars. At present dogs are merely shot if they are found to have worried stock. A microchipped dog would enable a dog’s owner to be identified and enforcement measures could then be taken to recoup costs for the damage done. 
Dogs first registered from 1 July will be affected. Let me just say that again: all existing dogs that are registered now will not need to be microchipped. People will not have to take in their already registered farm dog or family pet to be microchipped unless it is classified as a dangerous or menacing dog—I think that point may have escaped the Opposition. 
Microchipping is a very small one-off cost in overall dog ownership and for farm owners in particular it is tax deductible. In the event of universal microchipping that cost is likely to reduce over time as technology improves and the competition to provide services increases. The insertion of a microchip can be done by anyone as long as a vet or council officer verifies the implant. Both councils and vets may provide an implant verification service. 
The Government is committed to doing all it can to stop more vicious attacks from occurring by implementing tighter controls around dog ownership including but not limited to microchipping and by ensuring dog owners are more accountable in the event of attacks. This measure is being taken in response to public calls for action to improve public safety in relation to dogs. Parliament has also responded to calls from councils that wanted greater powers to take decisive action against irresponsible dog owners. For this reason the Government continues to assert that microchipping in conjunction with a range of strengthened dog control provisions aims to achieve this. I hope that common sense on the matter will prevail.