Fitzsimons Jeanette: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3168] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 When the time comes I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
This bill is the first opportunity for Parliament to consider whether the compulsory microchipping of all dogs is either necessary or useful. It is also an opportunity for the public to be heard on this issue at a select committee. It is a totally common-sense amendment that is supported by most councils vets dog owners farmers and many others. I hope all members will vote for the bill to go to a select committee so that there can be democratic consideration on it. 
The current law is that menacing dangerous or unregistered impounded dogs can and should be microchipped and that is happening. This bill does not change that. The current law also requires that from 1 July this year all dogs that are newly registered must be microchipped. That is what my bill repeals. The public and Parliament were horrified a few years ago by a series of vicious attacks on children that left them seriously injured and maimed. The poster child was Carolina Anderson and I acknowledge the shocking nature of her injuries. The outcry over those attacks led to the passing of a package of measures to improve the powers of local authorities to control dogs. Those measures were well-thought-through. They have been working and councils already report a reduction in the number of incidents involving dogs although the provisions to microchip all dogs have not yet taken effect. 
The Greens argued in the House at the time that we did not see the microchipping of all dogs as useful or necessary but it was not possible to separate it from the rest of the package at that time. So with some misgivings we voted for the bill as a whole. We are pleased we did because there has been some improvement in the control of dangerous dogs. But since then the issue has raised its head again and in the calmer environment that prevails now it is easy to see that universal microchipping will not improve child safety but will impose costs and bureaucracy on hundreds of thousands of dog owners. So it is time to think again. I do not think Parliament should be ashamed of having another think about a decision it made in the heat of the moment when that decision has since been shown to be questionable. 
If I thought there was the remotest chance of children being protected from what happened to Carolina by the current microchipping law I would not be promoting this bill. But logic prevents anyone from drawing that conclusion. Let us look at the arguments. Will the existence of a microchip in a dog prevent it from attacking a child? Clearly not. Even the Government is not making that claim. Will a microchip help to determine which dog has attacked a child so that it can be caught and destroyed? Clearly not. A microchip is not a locator beacon it is not a Global Positioning System mechanism and it is not a miniature camera; it is just a record of ownership and age. So when a dog attack occurs and the dog cannot be found a chip will not help to find it. 
I remember the trouble we had on the farm when a neighbouring dog—a farm dog as it happens and I will come back to that later—savaged 15 of our prime lambs. Half of them were killed and the others were so horribly mutilated that we had to shoot them. We eventually identified the dog because it had wool between its teeth which is what one looks for when trying to find the dog that did the damage in that situation. A microchip would not have helped. 
What about when a dog attacks and is caught? The chippers argue that the chip will identify the owner who can then be held accountable. That is the one argument that does work but it will not help the child and it will not help any child in the future either. A dog that is found guilty of a savage attack such as the one on Carolina Anderson will be destroyed. A dog that is found guilty of a less serious offence will be microchipped under existing law before it is released or it will be destroyed if its owner will not agree to pay for the chip. A second offence will always be known to be a second offence. We do not need universal microchipping to achieve that. 
The chippers argue that if a dog that is classed as dangerous or menacing moves around the country it will be hard to track and recognise as a potentially dangerous dog. That is right and that is why we fully support the chipping of dogs after a first offence or menacing behaviour. My bill does not change the law in that respect. Then there is the argument that a chip will help to reunite a straying dog with its anxious owner. That is true. That is why all owners will retain the option of chipping their dog if they are worried about its safety and if it has a tendency to stray. That is a good idea. I think it is great that dog owners have that option but there is no point in making it compulsory. 
One problem that occurs now is that many of the worst-behaving dogs which have been trained to be badly behaved are not registered at all. Some figures suggest that half of the dogs that carry out attacks are not registered—they have no collars and the law does not know about them at all. Do we really think that people who will not register their dogs for a comparatively low fee will microchip them for an extra $70? I doubt it—not when it is going to cost extra and not when the owners know they have trained those dogs to be menacing. The remedy for those dogs when they are found to be menacing or dangerous is that they are either put down or microchipped compulsorily at that stage. 
There has been a very strong lobby for a special exemption to this law for farm dogs or working dogs. Why do the Greens not support that? Should we not support half a loaf instead of no bread? Not when it makes the other half taste really bad. How are we to decide what is a working dog and what is a farm dog? What about dogs for the blind? How will hunting dogs on farms which are sometimes the worst offenders be classified? Are they working dogs? In fact at the public meetings that Federated Farmers conducted around the Waikato the animal control officer from south Waikato described the amendment as unworkable and said that when trying to exempt farm dogs the line between working or farm dogs and other dogs cannot be defined. She ought to know. She is right there on the front line dealing with dogs now. 
Secondly what evidence has been put forward to show that farm dogs are less dangerous than other dogs? There is no evidence that I have seen. And if farm dogs are exempted the costs to owners of all other dogs would be increased. Those owners would then have to among themselves pay for the total costs of the national dog database. Why should farm dogs be exempted when farmers already have tax deductibility for their charges and grandma with her poodle in the city does not? 
Federated Farmers changed their position and they now support the Greens’ view. Federated Farmers said at the meetings in the Waikato that they had made a tactical mistake by seeking an exemption initially and that restricting microchipping to notifiable dogs was the better position morally politically and tactically. 
I thank the National Party members for coming round on this and supporting our bill as I understand they will do. I think they have adopted a good position. I thank the Maori Party and ACT for supporting the bill and I urge United Future to think about what it is really doing when it votes at the end of this debate.