Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10035] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Dog attacks are dreadful and it is totally reasonable for people to seek action from Parliament to make sure that all that can be done is done. But it needs to be pointed out that most attacks are by dogs that are known by the people who are attacked and attacks on strangers happen not because of inadequate law but because of law ignored or law inadequately enforced. I commend David Parker and members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. If a bill like this can be enjoyable the experience of working with people in a cooperative fashion is an enjoyable experience and there was a great deal of cooperation in this committee. 
Good law reflects and supports good behaviour. This law is a mixture of carrot and stick of incentive and disincentive. The messages that came through loud and clear from the submissions was that overwhelmingly the majority of the 500000 dogs in New Zealand are unlikely to offend. They are owned and cared for by responsible dog owners. This legislation has been tempered by the need to ensure that members of the public are kept safe from dangerous and menacing dogs by ensuring that they are muzzled neutered and kept on a lead or behind a fence and to do this without penalising the good dogs and the responsible dog owners. 
There is the possibility of incentives by way of reduced registration fees for owners who can demonstrate that they know how to look after their dogs—that is by attending puppy school going to a dog obedience classes with their dogs and so on. The ability to prevent irresponsible dog owners from keeping dogs for up to 5 years is strengthened. This is not a new requirement. Reports that the owners of the dog that attacked Carolina Anderson have been observed since their conviction with a dog on the same reserve where the attack occurred suggests that some local authorities need to enforce more rigorously the bans on owning dogs. The reporting procedures for local authorities will hopefully ensure that they are more likely to enforce the provisions knowing that they are more readily able to be held accountable. 
I mentioned earlier that the bill has been tempered by the need to protect against dangerous dogs without penalising the good dogs or the responsible dog owners. There are two areas in the bill where we believe that measures most certainly do or in some cases could catch the responsible along with the irresponsible. The first is in the case of breed-specific bans. The Green Party has no issue with bans on dogo Argentino or the Japanese tosa or the Brazilian fila. These dogs are so few in number that neutering and the ban on imports is likely to ensure that they are unlikely to be a problem and will not be here for very much longer if there are any here. We are concerned that the ban includes American pit bull terriers—a breed that is notoriously difficult to identify and indeed the description of the pit bull terrier that is included in the bill shows that the size differential is such that if applied to other breeds it could see judges confusing cocker spaniels with Afghans or springer spaniels. The size differential is huge. 
We are afraid that the ban is likely to undermine the reasonable caution that should be exercised around all dogs or that it will create unnecessary fear around some breeds that bear some resemblance to pit bull terriers like Staffordshire bull terriers which have a reputation for being pussy cats. We have been comforted by the indication from the Minister that the criteria for adding new breeds to the banned list will be rigorously applied and that a single attack by one of a breed will not result in muzzling and so on on all specimens of that breed. We recognise that the inclusion of the American pit bull terrier reflects a concern about a range of dogs bred for fighting but we believe that these dogs are likely to be caught by the provisions on dangerous and menacing dogs. 
Our deeper concern however is over the issue of microchipping of all dogs. The committee carefully considered all of the submissions but in particular those of the local authorities and decided “Yes” to microchipping dangerous dogs menacing dogs problem dogs and dogs that had been impounded for a second time; and “Yes” to allowing individual local authorities to microchip all dogs if they believed that that would best meet their needs. The Greens’ attempt to add hunting dogs to the list of chipped dogs so that the owners of escaped hunting dogs could be held responsible for attacks on farm animals and wildlife was not supported by the committee. Those dogs will now be chipped. We hope hunters who lose their dogs will be more diligent in their efforts to recover them. 
We were disappointed that the Minister was unwilling to isolate the Supplementary Order Paper amendments that related to microchipping from the others in Part 5. It was a measure of my inexperience that I did not vote against all of the Supplementary Order Paper amendments for that part of the bill. It made little difference to the outcome. Clearly New Zealand First had indicated its willingness to support the Government. 
We remain unconvinced of the necessity for microchipping the 450000 dogs that are unlikely to bite or cause a problem in order to catch or protect against the 50000 dogs that may. While the cost of chipping all dogs registered after 2006 is nowhere near approaching the figures that some have suggested recently there can be little justification for doing that whatever the price in the light of the deeply held concern by many responsible dog owners since chipping will serve no useful purpose for most people or their dogs. The Minister said that the chipping is necessary for the national register. Clearly current registration details will be entered into the national register. As it is likely to be some time beyond 2016 before all dogs in New Zealand are chipped a national register is perfectly viable without compulsory chipping. 
The same arguments hold true for the viability of purchasing equipment for the identifying of microchips. If local authorities believe it is necessary to chip all dogs to make their equipment viable then they are able to make that decision for themselves. The committee suggested that that was OK. Clearly many do not think it is necessary. In view of the likelihood that most dogs will never come to the notice of dog control officers and hence never have the transponders run over them the measure is likely to undermine support for legislation that demands wholehearted buy-in from all dog owners. 
While the legislation strengthens the power of local authorities and dog control officers the measures to encourage dog owners to learn how to manage their pets in ways that minimise their risks will help to reduce those risks. Providing public education on what to do and what not to do around dogs will also help people but children in particular to keep themselves safe. 
The committee were accused—as politicians frequently are—of not listening. The changes to the fencing provisions are a testimony to the fact that the committee heard the many submitters. 
This is not a bad piece of law. There are bits of it we disagree with but it is our fervent wish that it does keep New Zealanders safe. It recognises too that for many people dogs are their only companion and for all dog owners are a very important part of their families. This law seeks to protect against dangerous dogs but recognises the importance of dogs in the lives of many New Zealanders and we support it.