Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10031] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on what was the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) which is now known as the Dog Control Amendment Bill. The National Party is supporting the main thrust of this bill which focuses on increased owner responsibility clamping down on irresponsible owners and better nationwide enforcement. 
However National is absolutely against universal microchipping of dogs. We believe that a very arrogant Labour Government and a very arrogant Labour Minister—along with some somewhat sycophantic members of New Zealand First and that other party—have agreed to allow this to happen over and above the advice of the Local Government and Environment Committee. After all the Labour Government has done nothing about dog control for 4 long years despite this bill being on the Order Paper since 1999 and despite statistics clearly showing that over the last 10 years there have been 300 serious dog attacks per year in New Zealand of which most are perpetrated on children and of which a large proportion are preventable. Not only that; thousands of dog attacks are recorded through the Accident Compensation Corporation and many thousands more are not recorded at all. 
Undoubtedly the crisis that finally jolted the present Labour Government into action was caused by several serious attacks in south Auckland and then the very awful attack on Carolina Anderson on about 31 January. I too join the Minister of Local Government in complimenting her father on the tremendous amount of work he has done to galvanise action on 
this bill which will receive its final reading this afternoon. In his submission to Parliament it was pointed out that despite the owners of that dog failing to call the dog off giving a false name failing to come forward to the police etc. under the present Dog Control Act they faced a maximum fine of $5000 and 3 months in jail on the charge of possessing a dangerous dog. Clearly in terms of the severity of what occurred it was very inappropriate. He went on in that same submission to state: “In light of the spate of dog attacks in New Zealand and the hideous impact this is having on many sectors of the community but especially children our friends and our many supporters in the community we urge the Government to make an urgent revision to the Dog Control Act.” It was in that context that finally the Labour Government decided to do something. 
I must say the select committee members worked well together. There was good collaboration and most of the positive parts of the bill were worked out in a spirit of inter-party collaboration and support. However what did emerge was that the Labour Government must have some sort of innate predetermined genetic disposition to carry out inane megalomaniac centrally controlled command activities like building fences all over New Zealand and universally microchipping dogs. It just cannot help itself. The Minister of Local Government certainly falls into that category and undoubtedly it seems as though he must fall into line with the Prime Minister’s commands. I noticed the other day at a function for the President of China which was held in Auckland that the President wore a very splendid Western-style suit but our Prime Minister managed to deck herself out again in an equally magnificent brown Mao Tse-Tung – type outfit that would be the pride of any foot soldier in that socialist country. 
Rodney Hide 
: It was amazing! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It was amazing! This dog control legislation gave the Prime Minister and Chris Carter the opportunity to expand their socialist claims to include building fences all over New Zealand that would be better than the Great Wall of China. Fortunately the good sense of the select committee finally managed to put them down on that one. However they sprang back when it came to microchipping dogs. 
I note the Minister was saying that in a few years’ time New Zealand will be glad that all our dogs are microchipped. Well let us just have a look at what Federated Farmers said today—and their members have in the order of 150000 working dogs. They said: “We urge you to oppose compulsory microchipping for the following reasons: no cost-benefit analysis of this proposal has been done …”. The Minister might say that yes a cost-benefit proposal was done; well we saw a cost of $12 to $20 per microchip but nothing accurate about the cost of insertion. After all there are 500000 dogs in New Zealand to be microchipped. It is a significant amount. Federated Farmers also say that microchipping will not prevent a single dog attack. They are absolutely right in that respect. After all we want to prioritise what will be most effective in preventing dog attacks and this inane effort by the Minister to universally microchip certainly will not do that. Federated Farmers also say: “This will impose an additional substantial annual cost on the owners of the 150000 New Zealand farm working dogs for no benefit.” I absolutely agree with that. 
Undoubtedly there are some good aspects of this bill and that is why National has been supporting it. For instance there is the duty of territorial authorities to adopt a policy on dogs and formulate a best-practice guideline that is available to all territorial authorities—I certainly hope the Minister will take that seriously and will make a commitment to ensure that those best-practice guidelines are available—and the fact that territorial authorities must report annually on dog control policy and practice. We learnt there is considerable variation around the country in terms of the way in which dog laws are enforced. It is very important to have both best-practice guidelines and indeed uniform enforcement around the country. We think it is absolutely right and proper that there are increased penalties and also that dog control officers have the right to pursue a dog on to a property after a serious attack and even into a house in outstanding instances. 
Undoubtedly owner education incentives for good owners and the regulations regarding probation and disqualification are right and proper. But there is no doubt that the majority of New Zealand dog owners—as I said before there are estimated to be 500000 dogs in New Zealand—are responsible. The whole focus of this bill must be on zoning in and clamping down on those irresponsible owners and decreasing preventable dog attacks. At the end of the day when I go to the park with my children or to the beach I want them to be safe. Only the other day when I was in Glendowie in Mr Speaker’s electorate with my children I looked furtively at a very large dog whose owner had left it not properly attached to a seat in the park. I thought that if that dog gets off and goes for my children it will be an awful nightmare for me—the sort of nightmare that parents right around this country are conscious of. What we really want this bill to do is ensure that owner responsibility is encouraged. We must clamp down on irresponsible owners and achieve universal enforcement of the law around the country.