Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9881] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Part 4 contains most of the controversial provisions in the bill particularly the breed-specific provisions and the requirement to microchip. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard a great deal about those matters from the submitters. This breed-specific legislation is very different from the type of legislation in other nations—in particular the UK. Their legislation is often referred to as a failure or not working. It may surprise members to learn that the UK has no dog registration at all. I spoke recently with one of its Government representatives about our legislation and was told that they look longingly at our kind of common-sense legislation as a way of dealing with their problem. The UK has a ban on the ownership of a particular breed but that is not what we are proposing. We are banning the importation of four breeds but it is still permissible to own one of those breeds. That is quite a departure from the examples overseas. 
People who own the pit bull terrier type of dog will not be prosecuted or have the dog immediately taken from them. The bill provides that the dog can be classified as menacing. The only onerous result is that the dog would be required to be muzzled when it is out in the public arena. That is a reasonable ask of the owners of such dogs regardless of whether their dogs are cross-breeds. If a dog looks like a pit bull terrier it will probably bite like a pit bull terrier and therefore people have a reasonable expectation that in the public arena which everybody wants to enjoy they will not be at the mercy of one of those dogs having a momentary flash and reverting to its carnal nature and taking a piece out of somebody.  
The select committee has arrived at a sensible middle ground in this legislation. The public need to get conversant with what is required in terms of menacing dogs. Their favourite dogs will not be taken from them. They will not lose the family pet. If they are of the opinion that their dog is safe—that it is not like all the other dogs—then the only requirement is that they muzzle the dog when it is in the public arena. I welcome the Minister’s amendments on his Supplementary Order Paper in that regard—one of which makes much clearer the effect of the classification “menacing dog”—and the Minister’s further amendment to omit section 33E(1)(ii)  because we do not want the control of those dogs to be by leash when they are in a public arena. That will be a matter for the local councils to deal with. If councils do impose by-laws whereby dogs have to be leashed in certain areas then that will apply to all dogs not just to those that are classified as menacing. 
I particularly welcome the Minister’s amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper relating to such dogs particularly those of a type because we are dealing not just with the type of dog that is outlined in schedule 4 but eventually with all types of dogs that could be considered menacing. It is important that we make this exemption for those large and potentially menacing dogs—such as German shepherds Dobermanns Rottweilers and so on—that are involved in dog shows across the country during weekends taking part in obedience trials or engaging in a lot of good family activity. Where a council’s local dog control officer has classified dogs of those types as menacing—which in normal circumstances have to be muzzled when in public—they can be given an exemption for the times they are involved in dog shows because obviously it would be ridiculous to have these dogs all with muzzles running around the circle while they are competing. So I welcome that amendment on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
On the issue of microchipping the crucial issue is not so much microchipping itself but whether we have a national database that enables dog control officers to have access to information that is vital to them in the performance of their job. I welcome that happening once the Minister’s amendments are passed. Not only will mandatory microchipping of new dogs take effect from 2006 which will eventually lead to a national database but also—