Carter Chris: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9876] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 This part relates to two very importantparts of the bill. First it deals with proscribing certain breeds and stopping their importation into New Zealand. When we looked at the issue of breed bans we looked at overseas jurisdictions and saw how they dealt with the issue. The breeds that are proscribed in the schedule—the Japanese tosa the dogo Argentino the Brazilian fila and the pit bull terriers—are all fighting breeds and are widely recognised internationally as being dangerous to the community. They are dogs that were bred specifically for fighting and often for hunting large game animals such as bears and so on. So they are dogs that are by nature and temperament aggressive and that generally speaking pose a risk to the community. 
Other countries have sought to ban those breeds within their jurisdictions. We looked at their experience to see whether that was successful. We saw bans proved in fact to be very complicated because classifying a dog as a type—belonging to say a pit bull terrier type which has a very wide range of types within the breed—is extraordinarily difficult. The UK Germany and some Australian states had some enormous problems with litigation as territorial authorities tried to say that a dog was a pit bull terrier and the owner tried to say it was not. Those cases ended up spending long periods in court and costing the ratepayers and taxpayers of those communities a great deal of money often with results that were not very satisfactory for public safety because the dog was for example found to be not a pit bull terrier but was still an aggressive and dangerous dog. 
So what we decided—and I am pleased to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has supported us—was that we needed to make a statement about the danger those dogs present to the community and that we do not want more of them to come into our country. We have erected barriers to prevent them from coming into the country but we have also said that within the country people who own any of those four breeds have to take extra care to keep the community safe. Owners will have to for example muzzle those dogs and leash them in public and so on. We have avoided the difficulties that overseas jurisdictions have had with regard to the classification of dog breeds internally and that is why I as Minister and the Government did not go down that path internally. 
But we do not want more of those dogs to come into the country. We have a barrier there and a recognised veterinary professional has to sign a document stating that the dog in question does not belong to one of the proscribed breeds. The importation of those dogs has been from countries where veterinary officers are of a high professional standard—the UK the US Australia and some other European countries—so I have a lot of confidence that that will be a fairly effective barrier. The odd dog may get through the barrier—I hope it does not—but by and large that import barrier will serve as a fairly effective break on any more of those dogs coming in. Three of the four breeds are very restricted in their numbers in New Zealand. One in fact may not even exist in the country so it will not be a particular issue. 
Now what about universal microchipping? I disagreed with the majority view of the select committee over this issue. In fact I signalled when the select committee’s report came back to the House that I would try to persuade other political parties to think about this issue again and I am delighted that we now have some support on it. So Dr Hutchison was not correct earlier when he said that this decision was new even to the Labour vice chair of the committee. In fact I made it quite clear last week that we would do this. Why have I gone ahead with universal microchipping? It seems to me that if we are to have an effective national database where all new registrations are microchipped from 2006 onwards and dangerous and menacing dogs are microchipped from 2006 as well then microchipping has to be universal and it has to catch all dogs in New Zealand eventually. 
There will be a period of transition. Probably by the year 2015 all dogs in New Zealand will be on the database and that will then address that serious problem that arose when I surveyed councils last Christmas. I asked how many dogs there were in New Zealand and was told we were not sure. Nor were we sure how many were registered because there is no national database. There are different systems of record-keeping throughout New Zealand. A national database that all dogs are on will fundamentally address that question. Universal microchipping will also address the other issue that some Opposition members have raised today of how to track a dog that goes from say Whangarei to Manukau City and that has been a problem dog in Whangarei. How does Manukau City find out about that? At the moment it cannot do so but with a national database which the Government has said it will fund the Manukau City Council officers will be able to instantly tap in electronically—that is the modern age. 
We live in the digital age now. We move with the times and microchipping is a means of moving with the times. There will be instantaneous access to a standard system that uses the same microchips has the same data-entry processes and contains data in the same format throughout New Zealand. It is a logical sensible and modern way of dealing with that. The select committee wanted to partially do microchipping. They wanted councils to buy the gear and use it on just some dogs. Well that then actually raises an issue of cost. Why buy the gear and not use it in the most effective way one can which is with all dogs eventually being microchipped? 
 Some people raised the question of a little chihuahua and asked why that breed of dog should be microchipped. In New Zealand many pedigree chihuahuas Jack Russell terriers and all sorts of other dogs little and big are already microchipped. The New Zealand Kennel Club which is a very enthusiastic supporter of the microchipping of all dogs encourages its members now to microchip their dogs. Why? Because if people steal a dog—and pedigree dogs are very valuable and just as loved as the little moggie pet—microchipping provides instant recognition. A collar and tag can be changed; a microchip cannot. So identification of the dog is about safety for the owner as well as for the community. 
Animal control officers also told us that one problem they have with menacing and dangerous dogs is that the owner disputes it is his or her dog that is involved or that the dog has done that before. Tags again can be changed which causes confusion over identity. Some members will remember a particular individual dog that was held by Porirua City last Christmas and the long litigation over whether the dog had attacked. The owner said no; the animal control officer said yes. There was a real dispute about the identity of the dog concerned. If that dog had been microchipped there would have been absolutely no confusion about its past history and its ownership. Again microchipping is a sensible safety measure not just for the community and not just for the sake of a dog’s identification but also for the owner. We can find out instantly whether a dog belongs to a particular owner by checking a microchip. 
For those reasons I am a very strong and passionate advocate for the microchipping of all dogs. It will not be an expensive process. A microchip currently costs between $12 and $20. If a vet inserts it he or she will charge a reasonable fee—as a good professional should. But animal control officers can easily be trained to insert microchips. Indeed in my other capacity as Minister of Conservation I say that my departmental staff microchip kiwis kakapo and other extraordinarily endangered birds in our country without any problem. Those officers are not trained vets but they are trained animal officers. I certainly have full confidence that council staff if trained adequately could do this job at minimal cost. So it will not be expensive either. For all those reasons—safety relative cheapness comprehensiveness and moving with modern times—I think that having a national database is an excellent idea.