Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3741] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I think that member over there meant to say that Doug Woolerton never lets the facts get in the way of an accurate story. Let me read this. On 13 November 2003 the vote for the Dog Control Amendment Bill went like this: New Zealand Labour 52 in favour; New Zealand National 27 in favour; New Zealand First 13 in favour; Green Party 9 in favour; and United Future 8 in favour. So let the fact remain that at the third reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill National members voted for it. 
This is a wide-ranging debate and there has been a lot of discussion on the issue of microchipping but this is a particular quote that I think is most illuminating and that I think most members will be quite interested in: “I think an important thing for us in the future as the microchip is developed and as local authorities have better means of identifying the dog through the mode of microchips is that Parliament passes legislation that allows for dogs throughout the country to have microchips implanted. When that happens we will have a proper means of identifying dogs. We will then be able to find those dog owners who are irresponsible enough not to register their dogs.” That speech was made by John Carter the National Party member. That is the kind of thing that was said some time ago and has been forgotten all of a sudden. 
The Government has said that microchips in themselves will not stop dog attacks. We have always acknowledged that. However strengthened dog control measures including microchipping actually give councils more power to deal with dangerous threatening lost or problem animals as well as give greater certainty about ownership by linking animals with their rightful owners. There has been much talk in the Chamber tonight about dogs worrying stock but the mere fact of the matter is that—and I have been visited by farmers throughout the period of discussion on this particular issue—if a dog worries a farmer’s stock the farmer shoots it. It is as simple as that. If a dog was microchipped the farmer could still shoot the dog and could identify the owner of the dog and then claim for the damages that have been done. There has been no talk about the fact that that would be very helpful to farmers. 
Microchipping also provides a safe certain and lifelong means of identifying a dog. I think that is really good. It links a dog to its owner and enables easy enforcement of an owner’s responsibility and that is what this is all about. It is really a framework to ensure responsible ownership. Owners of microchipped dogs including dogs without collars that have attacked people or stock and have been seized can be more easily identified. I have made some comment to farmers on the benefits of that if their stock are worried by a dog. Having an integrated national dog database means councils can easily share information about problem dogs and identify roaming animals that may be from outside their area. Again I say that this is very helpful legislation that can improve the situation. Farmers will benefit from the greater likelihood of tracing the owners of dogs involved in attacks on stock. Anecdotally I have heard that many of those attacks involve registered dogs that are not wearing collars. 
 Can I just say that on the issue of microchipping and registration members on both sides of the Chamber know that in some districts like the Hauraki District the cost of registration is $26 for a working dog that is neutered. So already there are ways in which local authorities have responded favourably in terms of their rural communities. It is important to note that only dogs newly registered as of 1 July will be affected by the bill. Members opposite have made a big thing of the cost but it is a very small part of the total cost. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Again the cost to farmers is tax deductible but there is very little talk about that. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The cost ranges from $35 to $70. It is a one-off charge. Microchipping should be looked at in the context of the other measures in the Dog Control Act. Opposition members have demonstrated monumentally that they have not read Part 1 and the measures that will be very helpful in providing greater enforcement of the Dog Control Act. 
Finally the definition of “disability assist dog” is very favourable to that grouping of dogs and I think the recommendation will be very helpful. Another useful amendment is the issuing of a warrant to enable a dog control officer to go on to a property to seize a dog. That is really important. If an officer needs to seize a dog in order to enforce the Dog Control Act then a warrant will be needed. It must be issued by a District Court judge and the officer must be accompanied by a police officer. The bill has other provisions that will be particularly helpful. 
Opposition members have tended to focus quite heavily on the claim that microchipping will not stop dog attacks. Well the Government has already said that but those members have made it an issue and blown it way out of proportion. They have spent more time talking about dogs than about the substantial and positive measures in the rest of the bill such as rates rebates. That shows where the Opposition’s priorities lie.