Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9879] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 4 is interesting because throughout the course of our deliberations and even up until this very minute almost the issue of breed and the ability to classify on breed characteristics even in the Supplementary Order Paper wholly belongs predominantly to one or more breeds. The whole issue of breed has dominated these sorts of discussions here and abroad as well. I think that the Local Government and Environment Committee overcame some of the issues. We were told that there are 77 dangerous breeds in the alarmist conversations we had with various people about breeds. We have overcome that issue and have come up with a pretty sensible end result in the language that is before the Committee. 
With regard to microchipping we as a committee moved for microchipping in respect of dangerous dogs. It was not until after we had finished our deliberations and I talked to people out in the industry as it were that I became concerned that we were setting up a very costly system which we had agreed to for only a few dogs as I said earlier on. We also looked at the issue with regard to some of the practicalities of microchipping because we saw it as an issue of registration. It does not have much to do with dangerous dogs in some ways. I hope very much that the technology can be developed further than it has at the present time. It seems to be eminently sensible that if we can flick a scanner at a garage door that is the same distance away as from my seat almost to the chairman and open it we should be able to do something similar for the dog ranger or official. If we can get the scanner to work at a distance of 2 metres away or so then that will enhance the whole value of microchipping particularly for dogs that roam or so-called unregistered dogs that roam up and down the roads and across paddocks. 
We were also concerned as was the previous speaker about the cost of microchipping. Therefore I was interested to read an article in the weekend press. I refer to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 and its analysis of its survey of “The cost of man’s dearest friend”. Any potential cost of once-in-a-lifetime microchipping pales in significance compared with the suggested total cost of maintaining a dog—that is $1500 to $2000 a year. So the cost of once-in-a-lifetime microchipping does not seem to be quite so significant. When we talk to veterinary surgeons and veterinary clinics we can see that the cost of microchipping is not as high as might be thought. If it were done on a national contract basis it would be even cheaper than the current suggested cost. I do not think the initial cost is a factor. The ability of a scanner—or transponder—to do the job from a distance is a huge help. That will result as it has elsewhere in the world in a more rigorous system of identification of dogs nationally—place by place. It was said earlier that a survey of local authorities found the consistency of enforcement was not good and that situation went right back to an uncertain base. So when the Government suggested it was agreeable to setting up the base the register and was hoping to maintain that with the support of local authorities I thought that was a reason to go with the proposal. It is not the end. It is the process that will have to be developed but 2006 is a long time ahead for planned universal microchipping if the practice is to succeed.