Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10034] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill as a sycophant. I am part of a caucus that discussed the issue robustly several times and might I say in reference to the previous comment with some expertise on farming matters. I myself have expertise not only with regard to dairy farming but also dog breeding. We brought quite a number of informed members and informed comment to our thinking on this bill. However if we are sycophants in the minds of other parties on our right then so be it. I am not about to change their thinking. 
However I do want to say that this bill could have been titled differently. It could have been titled the “Dog Control and Dog Administration Amendment Bill”. If it had been then some of the attendant issues that are with us today might not have caused so much recent concern. The focus of material on my desk and my emails has been solely upon the issue of whether this legislation would prevent aggressive dog attacks. To my mind and to the committee's mind that obviously was an issue. Obviously it was an issue in the 1990s causing a decade of work from 1991 to the present with regard to dogs and dog control. 
However the other issues that go with that such as the role of councils dog rangers enforcement officers dog owners dog breeders and veterinarians who are attendant on the dog industry are also matters that form the components of this legislation either in a major or minor part. Therefore it is just a wee bit unfortunate that so much attention has been placed upon control. The overall intention of the committee was to find an appropriate balance between the rights of dog owners and the right of everyone in the community to feel safe in the presence of dogs. 
I believe that the committee reached a very sound common-sense approach to the problem. It may be that the Minister’s opening comments at the start of the year showing the extent of his concern were perhaps a bit draconian. But that was understandable against the background of the issues that were with us over the Christmas break—and by the way since then. However in the submissions made to the select committee we have advanced in very quick time. The Minister can take credit for what in my short time in the House has been a very very speedy response from the start of the year to submissions to deliberation and now we are in the final stage of legislation that on 1 December will be law resulting from those submissions that were made at the time. 
 The framework as I said was related to aggressive attacks injuries and death in the case of some earlier attacks and more recently this year focus upon a death at Ruakaka. So the issue of dog control became too coloured with the aggressiveness of dogs rather than looking at the whole issue of how dog–related matters were administered in the community how registration was provided for and more recently the actual cost of that registration particularly because most councils have—and we applaud that—a user-pays policy. Most of the dog control issues in councils are controlled by the ability of responsible dog owners to pay for the total services of councils. I suggested the other day that in the very near future there may be a common-good factor that should come from rates for a time at least if the community is going to be so concerned about dogs in our society and particularly with regard to the time to implement a proper and appropriate process in regard to microchipping. But that is for councils to decide. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee response as I said was basically one of common sense. I therefore just want to take us through one aspect that has been covered and that is the aspect of microchipping. The committee found at the time that although there was not perhaps a case for universal microchipping there certainly was a case to take a segment of those dogs that were classified as dangerous menacing and impounded to be microchipped. That was the committee’s mind. We also heard from submitters who did support the compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Why? They supported that because of the attacks upon livestock and other issues. I was very fortunate to have been a principal of a school with an outstanding dairy and sheep farm for some years. The record that we had for 2 months and this was 5 years ago was 23 dogs shot on our farm for worrying sheep—a loss of almost 80 lambs and ewes. That is a huge cost. That sort of experience was also relayed to us by one of the submitters at the committee. He came from the Opotiki district and was a former chairman of the county council. He had worked in that district over some years to see whether microchipping was feasible. 
The veterinary society in that district worked with him and they took advice from Australia particularly from the two states where this measure is working. They arrived at our committee in no doubt that microchipping was an answer in the rural sector. It is not the answer to dog control in the sense of aggressive attacks but it certainly is a very very feasible answer with regard to registration. New Zealand First’s submission stated and I still believe that it is possible that the collar measure could be replaced by the chip. But that is a matter that is obviously for local authorities the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs to decide. 
Microchipping is a pragmatic issue. There is a time factor—1 July 2006. There is a long lead-time to get the technology right to improve on the method used in Australia and the technology used in the veterinary clinics of this country. Microchipping is also as we have already heard in earlier stages of the legislation an issue that needs to be faced with regard to a very credible ISO base. I want to plead again with the Minister and the department that the issue of a distant scanner will become a very very important issue if this is to come into operation in 2006. 
The last issue in respect of microchipping is this. I have heard comments about microchipping as have other members of this House; the issue is quite simple. Unless one’s dog is born before 1 July 2006 one is not affected. I have been quite amazed by some of the emails I have had and comments made in the last couple of days about the fear in the community. But there is no need for fear; this is a considered measure by the Minister and his department. We support the ability in a pragmatic way for the Minister to develop this matter which as I have said is supported by a considerable number in the rural community. I was at the Waimate North show on Saturday. I spoke to farmers there. Not one of the farmers I spoke to echoed the comments made in the emails from various branches of Federated Farmers. 
In conclusion this bill sets out higher penalties with regard to infringement offences and fees and it sets out more strenuous requirements with regard to the ability of enforcement officers to act. But above all the bill leaves with territorial local councils the discretion as to how this measure should be implemented and allows in the graduated strength of their bylaws for discretion at almost every point. The audit of councils’ annual plans is included for the first time and that will be easily achieved because the policies that the councils have with regard to dog control will be very clearly enunciated in their annual plans. 
Above all I wish the Minister and his department well. There is the issue of microchipping which is yet to be firmed up in the public’s mind but it is worth a go and I commend the bill to the House.