Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9878] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with prohibited dangerous and menacing dogs. It was good to see that in the Local Government and Environment Committee the words “potentially dangerous dogs” were changed to “menacing dogs” because after all even the tiniest chihuahua could be potentially dangerous under extraordinary circumstances—maybe when it gets a microchip inserted under this Labour Minister who is so intent on microchipping every dog in the country. 
In terms of the prohibition on the import of certain dogs there was discussion in the select committee as to whether that was appropriate for New Zealand. The select committee on balance agreed that it was. Undoubtedly the international statistics clearly show that certain dog breeds are associated with a far greater incidence of attacks that cause morbidity and mortality. Even though it is difficult to recognise those breeds once they have interbred—and that undoubtedly is a huge practical problem—the dogs listed in the schedule the Brazilian fila the dogo Argentino the Japanese tosa and the American pit bull terrier all do inspire in some people a considerable amount of fear and intimidation because they associate those dogs with many of the dangerous attacks and dangerous acts and with having characteristics that do worry little children or people who are not in a position to be able to protect themselves. 
I agree that it is absolutely appropriate that we do this now—we should have done it 20 years ago—and that we have a mechanism to add to the schedule by amendment not by Order in Council. I think we will deal with that issue later on. I think that having a mechanism to add breeds to the schedule by Order in Council would be inappropriate because clearly this measure is something that will evolve over a period of time and it should be scrutinised through the usual conventional passage of legislation rather than by having a quick-fire route as in the example of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I think it is also appropriate that there be a ban on importing the ova semen and embryo of those dangerous dogs. 
But the most important and contentious part of Part 4 is the microchipping provision. I am fascinated and concerned to hear that the Minister says that probably by 2015 all dogs will be on the database. Dog registration has been a problem in New Zealand for 150 years—in fact Rua Kenana was arrested up in the Ureweras because his dogs were not registered. I think the Minister is in fairyland if he thinks that all dogs will be on the database but he said they “probably” would be. 
It is very interesting to hear that even this very day he received an email from Colleen Begg registrar of the New Zealand Kennel Club begging the Minister to review the way he wishes to prescribe the microchipping of dogs. In fact just to go through it she stated this: “The provision in the bill as reported back in new clause 36A(3)(a) is preferable by ‘making the dog available in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the territorial authority’. We ask that you consider dropping the change in the SOP and stay with the provision in the reported-back bill. Our reason is that the SOP 167 is too proscriptive and will incur additional costs. The whole issue of public acceptance is seen to be dependent on keeping costs to an acceptable level. We are not convinced that every puppy needs to be seen by a vet nor that this can always be done at time of vaccination.” 
I hope the Minister will take a call and address the concerns of the New Zealand Kennel Club which has been supportive of microchipping but not in the way that the Minister suggests. I say that the vast majority of submitters and New Zealanders regard microchipping as quite unnecessary.