Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9750] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2). 
 The report back of the bill represents in my view significant progress towards improving the emphasis on community safety and dog control. The impetus for this bill came about after a series of particularly vicious dog attacks that occurred last summer. In one of those incidents a 7-year-old child Carolina Anderson was almost killed when attacked by an uncontrolled dog in an Auckland suburban park. The pain and suffering Carolina endured prompted community outrage and rightly so.  
Following a review of dog control laws and a detailed survey of local authorities it became apparent that significant improvements could be made to legislation to improve public safety. Consequently the Government’s intention in progressing this bill is to strengthen the existing Dog Control Act rather than to completely revamp it. What this bill does very well is to strike a better balance between the desires of dog owners to be able to enjoy their pets and the rights of other members of our community particularly children to go about their lives without fear of attack or intimidation by uncontrolled dogs. 
There is nothing I would like more than to be able to tell the House that this bill will halt dog attacks once and for all. Unfortunately that is not something I can do. As long as we have dogs in our community and as long as we have irresponsible owners some attacks will occur. It is simply inevitable. There are however a number of practical steps we can take to limit the number and severity of attacks. Those steps are taken in this bill. Local government is given a full complement of tools to control the impact of dogs in our communities. 
One of the most significant changes the committee made relates to the issue of fencing. In the original proposal dog owners were to have been required to securely contain their dogs on their own properties and to provide unimpeded access for visitors to at least one external door of a dwelling. Having carefully listened to the view of submitters the committee has decided to require owners to confine their dogs on their property when not under their direct control. But the committee has stopped short of specifying how dog owners should do this. 
I think this amendment is sensible and practical and I will support it. The change achieves the primary objective of the original proposal—that is that dogs must be confined and not roaming the streets. The committee also proposes that the existing ability of territorial authorities to classify some dog owners as probationary ought to be retained. The committee proposes that this classification remain in the Act but as an either/or option for councils to use in conjunction with disqualification as a tool when dealing with problem owners. The committee also proposes that councils should have a specific power to require such owners to attend courses in dog ownership or obedience. Again I think that those are sensible amendments and I will support them. 
The committee has also adopted a somewhat different approach to the Government’s proposal on the issue of microchipping all dogs. The committee supports microchipping but recommends it be limited to just three categories of dogs: dangerous dogs menacing dogs and those dogs that are to be returned to their owners after being impounded. The committee also recommends that individual councils be empowered to determine for their own districts whether microchipping is to be compulsory. 
My view and the Government’s view—which of course are the same—is that the introduction of a system of microchip identification of dogs should remain unchanged. We take the view that microchipping can provide for a truly effective and affordable means of dog identification only if it is applied to all dogs. Most important a system of microchip identification can work effectively only if it is linked to a national information database and that database can work effectively only if it is linked to the introduction of universal microchipping. 
I believe there are a number of flaws in what the select committee has proposed on this issue. The first is that the committee’s proposals will require each council to purchase equipment to support microchipping for the use of only a handful of dogs in each district. The second is that the ongoing cost of the database that should accompany microchipping will have to be recouped from just a small number of owners making it almost certainly very expensive for those owners. It is estimated that the set-up costs for a national database on dogs would be in the order of $1 million. The Government has indicated that it is prepared to meet the set-up costs because there are quite clearly national benefits from such a database. In addition to the set-up costs of the database there would be annual running costs that would amount to about 53c per dog if all dogs in New Zealand were registered. That figure would be vastly larger if it applied to just a few hundred owners and therefore the issue of compliance costs is another compelling reason to support a national database. 
For that reason I will be moving an amendment to the bill at the appropriate time to provide for the universal microchipping of dogs. I would like members from other parties in the House who are currently not supporting that position to think again on this issue. I note that the SPCA the Veterinary Association and the New Zealand Kennel Club all support microchipping. 
Aside from the issues I have just outlined the bill remains largely as introduced. Under the provisions of the bill territorial authorities will be required to review their dog control policies and bylaws under revised public safety criteria to ensure there is far less likelihood that children will be forced to encounter unleashed dogs in public places such as parks and playgrounds. 
I would like to thank the select committee for the amount of time it gave in hearing the proposals. The bill is about keeping the public safer from dangerous dogs. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the many submitters who participated so willingly in the select committee process and whose views on this matter were often very sincerely held.