Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9871] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 With regard to Part 2 the committee members arrived at a very sound set of clauses. They clarified for us the powers of dog rangers and dog officials to seize unregistered or offending dogs. One of the issues raised in the submissions was the need for consistency of enforcement. That call came from the SPCA in Auckland and from other bodies as well. Part 2 does that. It makes clear the ability of the dog control officer to go to the next stage after he or she has seized the dog. It gives reasonable rights to the owner of the dog but it also has a vision for the care of the animal meanwhile. That is what one would expect of a humane council faced with the problem of unregistered or offending dogs. 
Part 2 also clarifies the implied rights of all owners or occupiers of a house. That potential impediment has been overcome in the part we are debating. The provisions are sensible and there are no great problems in them with regard to the way they will be carried out in practice. I have already talked to three dog rangers on the issues in clauses 5 6 and 7. They believe that those provisions are an improvement on what was there before. They had further suggestions—which always arise after the event—but at the present time it is a reasonable and sane part for us to consider further. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 of this bill as other speakers have intimated is very important. Essentially it is very much about animal welfare. There can be few issues for New Zealand that are more important. I mention briefly the need to ensure more than adequate animal welfare rules and regulations so that we treat our animals appropriately in order to ensure the image that New Zealand has of being an agricultural nation that is reliant on animal products. There are always those who from time to time for whatever reason do neglect their animals. They either let them roam free or feed them in an inadequate way. There should be appropriate controls and powers for dog control officers—or indeed even neighbours I suspect—to come in and ensure that the animal is well treated with adequate food water and shelter. 
Reading Part 2 I could not help but reflect on the question of why cats are not also involved. I know we are dealing with dogs in this particular issue but I cannot help but think we are putting welfare controls in so that dogs get a good looking after when I am sure there are many cat lovers around this country who would believe there should be legislation for their little moggies and so on. However that might be for another day—God forbid! 
Larry Baldock 
: What about pet rabbits? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Oh and pet rabbits and all! I want to just emphasise the point that animal welfare is a very serious issue and should be treated as such by those in authority to ensure that as I mentioned earlier the image of New Zealand is not tainted by those who for whatever reason are inadequate in their care of animals. 
Clause 8 in Part 2 inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act that requires “dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purpose of providing permanent identification of dogs:”. This is one of the areas of the bill that will cause some real controversy. Indeed I spoke with a retired school headmistress last night who was very concerned about this particular issue. She has imported a Danish something or other. I asked her how big it was and she said: “It’s just a little wee guy.” and she said: “There is no way I am going to put a microchip into my dog.” 
Larry Baldock 
: She won’t have to. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Somebody else will do it for her I suppose. 
Larry Baldock 
: No it’s only the new dogs from 2006. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well the point is that after that time if she gets a new pup or whatever of this particular breed there will be huge reluctance by people to understand why the Minister believes that dogs of this size little chihuahuas or the—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there we go: “Dog-chip plan draws mixed reaction”—Mr Peters is just showing me one of the local papers. There is some real concern about the necessity for putting a microchip into the small Jack Russells—the ones that while they can be a bit snappy are not really the problem. The focus of this bill is always on the pit bull terriers and the large dogs—those that are considered to be dangerous dogs. But it emphasises the point that all dogs potentially can be dangerous to a very small child. To a baby a very small dog might be of some threat but microchipping them will not be the solution. Microchipping a chihuahua for example seems to me to be a bit unnecessary to say the very least but the microchipping of a rather large Dobermann Alsatian or pit bull terrier does have some merit. But the people who we demand should have these dogs registered and microchipped are the very people who will refuse to present their dogs for registration or to receive the microchip transponder so that they can be tracked and traced and the owners identified.