Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9754] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 First I wish to thank David Parker who chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee and fellow members for what in the end was a carefully considered and much more thoughtful response to an issue that earlier in the year was of great concern. 
I want to go back in time because if I just spend a moment or two looking at the past members will understand why at least one issue that of breed-specific content might not have been addressed in the minds of those who keep on writing to me—as recently as this afternoon—about what we have not done. This goes back to 1991 when Cabinet invited the then Minister of Local Government to conduct a review of the adequacy of existing dog legislation. The select committee reported back to the House after hearing about 400 submissions in July 1993. Older members will recall that the Dog Control Act was enacted in 1996. The issue of breed-specific legislation was considered and rejected and instead the training of dogs was considered the primary factor. Dog behaviour rather than dog breed became the determining issue of concern in that legislation. 
Throughout the 1990s the American pit bull terrier was often the subject of concern in the wider community. There was the death of Koro Dinsdale in April 1997 which the media implied had been caused by pit bull terriers. There was a sudden rush of concern throughout those years about the state of this dangerous breed why it was being allowed in and so on. Therefore it was no wonder that the then Minister of Local Government the Hon Christine Fletcher established a cross-party parliamentary working-party with the instruction that it consider what action should be taken under existing statutory powers to achieve the phased elimination from New Zealand of the American pit bull terrier then venture into difficult waters and consider crossbreeds. That working-party become known as the Brian Neeson working-party. It reported back in May 1997. Finally a bill of three parts came into the House just before the election in 1999 and that is the bill that our committee picked up. 
I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to Brian Neeson who is no longer with us. He was a good loyal honest and hard-working member of the National Party but for some strange reason he was rejected by the party and is no longer in the House. I would like to pay tribute to Brian whom I have known for many years. He will be very pleased to see that at long last his earnest efforts have been rewarded by this bill which comes to us in a more substantial form than his bill. 
As the Minister of Local Government has already said the committee heard a number of representations. I want to take the House through a few of them because they not only give us a lead as to what we were looking at but also leave us with some difficulties which I think the House will have to consider when the bill goes through the Committee stage next week. 
The Auckland City Council said that it was aware of the difficult issues in achieving a balance between the rights of responsible dog owners to own and control dogs and the right of members of the public to feel safe. That was expressed in our narrative to the bill. The council like us all deplored the increasing number of serious dog attacks. It acknowledged that the survey of local authorities—there was both an initial and a completed survey of local authorities—had indicated that a vastly disproportionate percentage of all attacks were by unregistered dogs. That was a cause of concern to us. The council said—and it is also our thoughts as expressed in the final report now before the House—that it is extremely important that we do not impose unnecessary restrictions on the majority of dog owners who are both law-abiding and responsible. That was one of the key concerns that we worked through in the committee. The Auckland City Council as a large city council with parks realised that one of the issues it had to look at and one that it might not have dealt with adequately in the past was the provision in its open spaces and parks of more stand-alone areas where dogs could be exercised. 
The Manukau City Council came to the committee on the same day. I found the Manukau City Council submission interesting. First of all it has roughly 14000 registered dogs and about 7000 unregistered dogs. The Manukau City Council covers an area that is known for having a large number of unregistered dogs. It wanted the committee—and I am not quite sure why it did not do it itself—to send a very clear message that dogs should be registered that it is not equitable for some dog owners to choose not to register their dogs and that it is certainly not equitable for the ratepayer to have to pay the total cost of enforcement in respect of dogs that are not registered. The council did not have a very clear position on microchipping. The Manukau City Council people thought it was of benefit but they were not clear in their minds about the technology that would go with microchipping. 
The other submission that I want to take the House through very quickly is one that I was particularly pleased to see and that was very precise—that is the submission from the Auckland branch of the SPCA. It raised four factors and I want to raise them here because they were the factors we looked at in our committee report. It talked about the consistency of law. I am sure the society meant consistency of law throughout all local authorities responsible for dog control. The survey that has already been alluded to showed quite clearly that there is not consistency of control. On the basis of reading it again this afternoon I have to say that of the 79 or so territorial authorities there might not be more than 23 to 25 that exercise reasonable dog control. 
That is not being negative because one of the issues of dog control is the issue that I started with—that is the cost to ratepayers. The district councils with two or three rangers running a $100000 operation feel that that is all that dog control is worth in terms of council funding. They are not likely to increase that funding unless there is some incentive to do so. But the councils—and I have talked to a number since the committee brought down its report—are not happy or unhappy; they just feel they could do better. 
I have raised with them the issue of microchipping. That was one of the issues the committee looked at very carefully and we walked away from it in some ways. The issue of microchipping is an important one. The select committee gave it due deliberation. The issue as I see it now—and our caucus has discussed it fairly completely—is that in the committee’s mind if we were to call for compulsory microchipping of dangerous dogs and for a national database and register throughout the country the cost to the councils of that would be so inequitable that it would not really run as a going concern. From that our caucus advanced our thinking to the point where we think microchipping should be universal. We had certain issues about it. The first is the state of the technology. The transponder by the way needs to be slightly bigger; instead of being able to view it from the distance between myself and that glass it really needs to be visible from a metre or so away. Secondly in our thinking about it I advanced to our caucus that there was no need for a collar and that microchipping could be done alone. I have come to feel that perhaps a collar is needed as well. 
The third thing I want to say—and I know that veterinary surgeons who have a vested interest are strongly in support of this—is that if we do support microchipping we would need to have qualified dog officers inserting the microchips. One vet told me there is nothing worse than the sight of a pure white 3-month-old dog whose microchip was not inserted very well; the owner fainting at the sight of the dog’s blood going down the back of its neck which is where the chip is inserted. 
The process is easily done. The transponder is an issue. The database would be sound. I think in the end the number of registered dogs would be greater. The cost could be borne provided that the Government meets the substantial cost as the Minister said today of the database and the continuance of the database.