Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9863] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to make a few more points with regard to the commencement date. Firstly I refer to the point made by Larry Baldock about clause 24 which relates to the fencing provision. To my mind the Government has fortunately come to its senses. It has recognised that fencing half of New Zealand is inappropriate and that the major thrust of this bill should certainly be on owner responsibility. The point is that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004. 
The Government has suddenly today brought in Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter. It has not discussed with anyone that Supplementary Order Paper which overrides the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee and it has led to considerable confusion. I do not entirely agree with Stephen Franks of ACT that it is inappropriate that the bill comes into force on 1 December this year; I believe that the bill should have come in years ago. It was only because the Labour Government did not focus on the importance of preventable dog attacks for 4 long years that a crisis occurred and finally it got around to doing something. 
As I have pointed out owner responsibility is vital and clause 24 does indeed deal with the control of dogs on an owner’s property. It makes the point that the owner of a dog must at all times ensure that the dog is either under the direct control of a person or confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises. That to my mind is reasonable and is the sort of law that all responsible dog owners should abide by. If an owner is not abiding by that then it is right and proper that appropriate fines are put on that person. Unfortunately there is a small group of irresponsible owners. 
That is the same argument that goes along with microchipping—again these comments are on the commencement date because after all clauses 8 15 and 35 are due to commence on 1 July 2006. Indeed providing for universal microchipping was the difference the Government made on Supplementary Order Paper 167 overriding the select committee’s wishes. What is so aggravating about this Labour Government bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper on top of its bill which has been to the select committee and amended by it is that the bill is now quite different. We no longer know whether clause 8 is omitted whether it comes into force on 1 December 2003 or whether it comes into force on 1 July 2006 as the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper states. I hope he will take a call to explain why clause 8 is omitted. I hope that he has rethought that come to his senses again and realised that the wisdom of the select committee should be followed: that universal microchipping is inappropriate in New Zealand and that there are far more important priorities. This is the point that Mr Franks made. 
We want to have practical enforcement of dog laws in New Zealand. We do not want to devote a huge amount of time and attention to expensive databases and microchipping every dog that is with a responsible owner. We want to clamp down on irresponsible owners and ensure that the basic framework of the 1996 legislation is better enforced because it has not been universally enforced around New Zealand. Hence I hope that the Minister will take a call to explain why he has suddenly brought in that Supplementary Order Paper to override the bill that this Parliament expected to see today and to say whether he has indeed come to his senses and decided to do in with universal microchipping.