Heatley Phil: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14119] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am pleased the Minister acknowledged that it was somewhat draconian to introduce a dog control law whereby every dog in New Zealand is microchipped regardless of its owner regardless of what threat it could be to anyone regardless of its history—regardless of anything. Because it is draconian and it just makes me a little sad I guess when one considers that grandma cannot now keep a dog as company as perhaps some comfort should her husband die. It is sad to me that I cannot now go and buy a little puppy for my 3-year-old and my 4-year-old without them being served with papers to fill in lots of boxes to tick and heaps of compliance costs. 
I consider that my two little blondies—one aged 3 and one aged 4 gorgeous little kids more like their mother granted than their father—would love to have a little puppy this Christmas. Unfortunately because of this Minister and of what he acknowledges are his draconian laws I see in this bill that my little boy will be faced with the following: he will be faced with the power of a dog control officer or dog ranger to feed and shelter his little dog. My little boy will be classified as an owner and the territorial authority the district council may require my little boy to undertake some sort of training. Gee! He just got a puppy for Christmas and he has to undertake some training! 
There will be the obligation on him to dispose of the dog if it is unregistered and my 4-year-old would be disqualified as an owner. Under clause 11A he now will have to maintain records and provide information that affects the classification of his dog as to whether it is dangerous. The territorial authority the district council may visit our place on 26 December the day after Christmas and ask for Bryn. The 4-year-old will come to the door and the dog control officer will say: “We want to classify your dog as menacing. What breed is it? Is it a breed that is menacing? We are deciding.” The dog will have to be registered of course—we do not oppose that—and my boy will have to supply register information. There will be a national dog control information database that may contain additional information about my son. The microchip transponder must be implanted in my son’s little puppy. And on it goes. 
I am just pointing out the absurdity of not targeting dangerous breeds menacing dogs with a particular history and dogs that belong to owners like gang members and are trained only to fight kill and attack other dogs and perhaps other people. Rather this legislation targets grandma with her poodle and my 4-year-old son with his little Labrador puppy. I point out to the House the absurdity of that. I am sure that when the country faces the fact and wakes up one morning and realises that this law or laws associated with it have come into effect and that hundreds of thousands of people will have to microchip their dogs the absurdity of it will not be beyond the comprehension of most sensible New Zealanders. That idea should be challenged.