Dog Control Amendment Bill

This part relates to two very important parts of the bill. First, it deals with proscribing certain breeds and stopping their importation into New Zealand. When we looked at the issue of breed bans, we looked at overseas jurisdictions and saw how they dealt with the issue. The breeds that are proscribed in the schedule—the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentino, the Brazilian fila, and the pit bull terriers—are all fighting breeds, and are widely recognised internationally as being dangerous to the community. They are dogs that were bred specifically for fighting, and often for hunting large game animals such as bears, and so on. So they are dogs that are by nature and temperament aggressive, and that, generally speaking, pose a risk to the community.

Other countries have sought to ban those breeds within their jurisdictions. We looked at their experience to see whether that was successful. We saw bans proved, in fact, to be very complicated, because classifying a dog as a type—belonging to, say, a pit bull terrier type, which has a very wide range of types within the breed—is extraordinarily difficult. The UK, Germany, and some Australian states had some enormous problems with litigation, as territorial authorities tried to say that a dog was a pit bull terrier and the owner tried to say it was not. Those cases ended up spending long periods in court, and costing the ratepayers and taxpayers of those communities a great deal of money, often with results that were not very satisfactory for public safety, because the dog was, for example, found to be not a pit bull terrier, but was still an aggressive and dangerous dog.

So what we decided—and I am pleased to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has supported us—was that we needed to make a statement about the danger those dogs present to the community, and that we do not want more of them to come into our country. We have erected barriers to prevent them from coming into the country, but we have also said that within the country people who own any of those four breeds have to take extra care, to keep the community safe. Owners will have to, for example, muzzle those dogs and leash them in public, and so on. We have avoided the difficulties that overseas jurisdictions have had with regard to the classification of dog breeds internally, and that is why I as Minister, and the Government, did not go down that path internally.

But we do not want more of those dogs to come into the country. We have a barrier there, and a recognised veterinary professional has to sign a document stating that the dog in question does not belong to one of the proscribed breeds. The importation of those dogs has been from countries where veterinary officers are of a high professional standard—the UK, the US, Australia, and some other European countries—so I have a lot of confidence that that will be a fairly effective barrier. The odd dog may get through the barrier—I hope it does not—but by and large that import barrier will serve as a fairly effective break on any more of those dogs coming in. Three of the four breeds are very restricted in their numbers in New Zealand. One, in fact, may not even exist in the country, so it will not be a particular issue.

Now, what about universal microchipping? I disagreed with the majority view of the select committee over this issue. In fact, I signalled when the select committee’s report came back to the House that I would try to persuade other political parties to think about this issue again, and I am delighted that we now have some support on it. So Dr Hutchison was not correct earlier, when he said that this decision was new even to the Labour vice chair of the committee. In fact, I made it quite clear last week that we would do this. Why have I gone ahead with universal microchipping? It seems to me that if we are to have an effective national database, where all new registrations are microchipped from 2006 onwards, and dangerous and menacing dogs are microchipped from 2006 as well, then microchipping has to be universal and it has to catch all dogs in New Zealand eventually.

There will be a period of transition. Probably by the year 2015 all dogs in New Zealand will be on the database, and that will then address that serious problem that arose when I surveyed councils last Christmas. I asked how many dogs there were in New Zealand, and was told we were not sure. Nor were we sure how many were registered, because there is no national database. There are different systems of record-keeping throughout New Zealand. A national database that all dogs are on will fundamentally address that question. Universal microchipping will also address the other issue that some Opposition members have raised today, of how to track a dog that goes from, say, Whangarei to Manukau City, and that has been a problem dog in Whangarei. How does Manukau City find out about that? At the moment it cannot do so, but with a national database, which the Government has said it will fund, the Manukau City Council officers will be able to instantly tap in electronically—that is the modern age.

We live in the digital age now. We move with the times, and microchipping is a means of moving with the times. There will be instantaneous access to a standard system that uses the same microchips, has the same data-entry processes, and contains data in the same format throughout New Zealand. It is a logical, sensible, and modern way of dealing with that. The select committee wanted to partially do microchipping. They wanted councils to buy the gear and use it on just some dogs. Well, that then actually raises an issue of cost. Why buy the gear and not use it in the most effective way one can, which is with all dogs eventually being microchipped?

Some people raised the question of a little chihuahua, and asked why that breed of dog should be microchipped. In New Zealand many pedigree chihuahuas, Jack Russell terriers, and all sorts of other dogs, little and big, are already microchipped. The New Zealand Kennel Club, which is a very enthusiastic supporter of the microchipping of all dogs, encourages its members now to microchip their dogs. Why? Because if people steal a dog—and pedigree dogs are very valuable, and just as loved as the little moggie pet—microchipping provides instant recognition. A collar and tag can be changed; a microchip cannot. So identification of the dog is about safety for the owner, as well as for the community.

Animal control officers also told us that one problem they have with menacing and dangerous dogs is that the owner disputes it is his or her dog that is involved, or that the dog has done that before. Tags, again, can be changed, which causes confusion over identity. Some members will remember a particular individual dog that was held by Porirua City last Christmas, and the long litigation over whether the dog had attacked. The owner said no; the animal control officer said yes. There was a real dispute about the identity of the dog concerned. If that dog had been microchipped, there would have been absolutely no confusion about its past history and its ownership. Again, microchipping is a sensible safety measure, not just for the community and not just for the sake of a dog’s identification, but also for the owner. We can find out instantly whether a dog belongs to a particular owner by checking a microchip.

For those reasons, I am a very strong and passionate advocate for the microchipping of all dogs. It will not be an expensive process. A microchip currently costs between $12 and $20. If a vet inserts it, he or she will charge a reasonable fee—as a good professional should. But animal control officers can easily be trained to insert microchips. Indeed, in my other capacity as Minister of Conservation, I say that my departmental staff microchip kiwis, kākāpō, and other extraordinarily endangered birds in our country, without any problem. Those officers are not trained vets, but they are trained animal officers. I certainly have full confidence that council staff, if trained adequately, could do this job at minimal cost. So it will not be expensive, either. For all those reasons—safety, relative cheapness, comprehensiveness, and moving with modern times—I think that having a national database is an excellent idea.

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.

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, $1,500 to $2,000 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.

The Greens are delighted that the bill targets dangerous dogs, menacing dogs, and problem dogs. Although we will be supporting the breed-specific bans, we do have some problems with them. The following breeds of dogs—tosa, fila brasiliero, and dogo Argentino—do not exist in New Zealand, or, if they do, they are very small in number. It is unlikely there are enough to warrant worrying about banning them. However, they are dangerous dogs. We have been told, and the Minister admits, that the American pit bull terrier is a difficult breed to identify. We are a little bit worried that other dog breeds that look like pit bull terriers may be caught by this legislation. They may be required to be muzzled or neutered when they are in fact not dangerous but just happen to look like American pit bull terriers—in spite of the fact that American pit bulls are, apparently, difficult to identify.

The bill bans four breeds at this stage. It has been pointed out by the kennel clubs that Italy started off by banning four breeds but now bans 77 breeds. I notice the bill contains fairly strict criteria for adding new dogs to the list of banned breeds, but I would be pleased to hear the Minister confirm that he will be applying those criteria fairly rigorously before adding other breeds. Microchipping may not be a huge cost compared with the overall cost of owning a dog. As Jim Peters said, maintaining a dog is an expensive business anyway. But microchipping all dogs so that dog control officers can get better use of their transponders would just add to the cost. Most dogs will never have the wand waved over them. It will happen only to problem dogs or dogs that come to the notice of dog control officers. Although the Greens do not support universal microchipping, in some ways it has advantages. Hunting dogs will get caught by this legislation, and that will offer some protection to wildlife. It will certainly offer some protection in terms of sheep being worried by dogs that escape from hunters. I suspect that once hunting dogs are tagged, hunters will make very strenuous efforts to locate their dogs when they are lost. The Greens have mixed thoughts about both these measures. We will be supporting the ban on specific breeds but we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of universal microchipping.

The definition of “dangerous dogs” or “menacing dogs” is interesting. Those of us who have watched a television programme or movie starring a couple of Dobermanns tearing down a lawn at night, running towards somebody popping over a fence and salivating as they do so, will know it conjures up a pretty terrifying image of dangerous dogs. I have a little story of some people who lived in a house on our property some years ago. They had a Dobermann pinscher—that, I think, is the full name of the breed. Being a sheep farmer, I was unsure about having that huge Dobermann on the property. The people said there was absolutely no problem, and they told me what had happened the day before. They had a 2-year-old son or daughter who was playing with the dog outside. The child inadvertently reached up, grabbed what I can only describe in this House as the dog’s unmentionables, and gave them a bit of a yank. The dog yelped, shot inside, hid under the bed for the rest of the day, and would not come out. But according to some, that is a dangerous breed of dog. It was a huge Dobermann.

It is an interesting exercise when one classifies all dogs purely by breed and says they are inherently dangerous. So too are Jack Russell’s; so too are any little snappy dogs. But to say that a Dobermann is dangerous just because it is a Doberman, and just because it has been portrayed that way in books, movies, television, or whatever, is applying some sort of a driftnet to this issue. I know that many dogs are menacing and they look very dangerous. As a child, I can well recall being scared stiff of walking down the street because of a rather large dog. I think it was a German wire-haired terrier, a very curly-coated terrier, and it had pink eyes. I can still see it. I was terrified of that dog, but my parents assured me that it was totally harmless. So it is all a matter of what one perceives.

Here we have legislation that is going to track these dangerous dogs by forcing the owners to have a microchip placed in the dogs in a few years’ time. I understand the Minister’s comments that stud breeders will think this legislation is a marvellous advance. They will know that the progeny of these dogs is absolutely genuine and that there is no falsifying of records. It will be of huge benefit to stud breeders, whether the animals concerned are dogs or any other animal, for that matter. It is a marvellous opportunity, but again we come back to the fundamental point that the ACT party has been trying to get across, and that is that this legislation will not catch those genuinely dangerous dogs and those genuinely dangerous dog owners. Surely these are the people we are trying to catch with this legislation—not the decent, law-abiding people up and down this country who take their dogs for walks and treat them well, and whose dogs become part of the family, regardless of their breed. Staffordshire bull terriers look hugely menacing but are very placid. They are really marvellous family pets, but if people cross-breed them with the pit bull, therein lies the problem—and those are the people who are going to studiously avoid microchipping these dogs, because microchipping means they could be easily caught and identified; both the dog and the owner. They are not going to do it. So we are imposing, yet again, extra costs onto law-abiding citizens, and families, who adhere to the requirements. It is all very well for the Minister and MPs on our salaries to say it is only another $30 or $40, or whatever it might be, and that the fees are only a few more dollars. But to a lot of people another $30 to $50 is a significant sum of money, and I do not think it is appropriate for us to say that it is not.

Part 4 contains most of the controversial provisions in the bill, particularly the breed-specific provisions and the requirement to microchip. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard a great deal about those matters from the submitters. This breed-specific legislation is very different from the type of legislation in other nations—in particular, the UK. Their legislation is often referred to as a failure or not working. It may surprise members to learn that the UK has no dog registration, at all. I spoke recently with one of its Government representatives about our legislation and was told that they look longingly at our kind of common-sense legislation, as a way of dealing with their problem. The UK has a ban on the ownership of a particular breed, but that is not what we are proposing. We are banning the importation of four breeds, but it is still permissible to own one of those breeds. That is quite a departure from the examples overseas.

People who own the pit bull terrier type of dog will not be prosecuted or have the dog immediately taken from them. The bill provides that the dog can be classified as menacing. The only onerous result is that the dog would be required to be muzzled when it is out in the public arena. That is a reasonable ask of the owners of such dogs, regardless of whether their dogs are cross-breeds. If a dog looks like a pit bull terrier it will probably bite like a pit bull terrier, and therefore people have a reasonable expectation that in the public arena, which everybody wants to enjoy, they will not be at the mercy of one of those dogs having a momentary flash and reverting to its carnal nature and taking a piece out of somebody.

The select committee has arrived at a sensible middle ground in this legislation. The public need to get conversant with what is required in terms of menacing dogs. Their favourite dogs will not be taken from them. They will not lose the family pet. If they are of the opinion that their dog is safe—that it is not like all the other dogs—then the only requirement is that they muzzle the dog when it is in the public arena. I welcome the Minister’s amendments on his Supplementary Order Paper in that regard—one of which makes much clearer the effect of the classification “menacing dog”—and the Minister’s further amendment to omit section 33E(1)(ii), , because we do not want the control of those dogs to be by leash when they are in a public arena. That will be a matter for the local councils to deal with. If councils do impose by-laws whereby dogs have to be leashed in certain areas, then that will apply to all dogs, not just to those that are classified as menacing.

I particularly welcome the Minister’s amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper relating to such dogs, particularly those of a type, because we are dealing not just with the type of dog that is outlined in schedule 4 but, eventually, with all types of dogs that could be considered menacing. It is important that we make this exemption for those large and potentially menacing dogs—such as German shepherds, Dobermanns, Rottweilers, and so on—that are involved in dog shows across the country during weekends, taking part in obedience trials or engaging in a lot of good family activity. Where a council’s local dog control officer has classified dogs of those types as menacing—which in normal circumstances have to be muzzled when in public—they can be given an exemption for the times they are involved in dog shows, because obviously it would be ridiculous to have these dogs, all with muzzles, running around the circle while they are competing. So I welcome that amendment on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper.

On the issue of microchipping, the crucial issue is not so much microchipping itself but whether we have a national database that enables dog control officers to have access to information that is vital to them in the performance of their job. I welcome that happening once the Minister’s amendments are passed. Not only will mandatory microchipping of new dogs take effect from 2006, which will eventually lead to a national database, but also—

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is there any chance of putting the amendments separately—at least the one regarding the compulsory microchipping?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister has indicated that he wishes them to be grouped, so that is the way it is being done. If the Minister wishes to change his mind, that is up to him.

I seek leave that we have one vote on the microchipping provisions and another vote on the dangerous dog provisions.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [Interruption] Would the member care to explain again the leave he seeks.

I think what the member is asking for and what the Committee might like to do is to be able to vote on the microchipping provisions and then on the dangerous dog provisions. I seek leave to have a separate vote on the two parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are voting for the Minister’s amendments now are we not?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, the Minister’s typescript amendments.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thought we began voting on the amendments to the amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes. I will put the question again, because there appears to be some confusion.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to the amendments to clauses 14 and 15 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167, in his name, be agreed to:

to omit new section 33E(1)(a)(ii), set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 167; and

to omit new section 36A(3) and substitute the following subsections:

(3) Subsection (2) is complied with by the owner—

(a) making the dog available, in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the territorial authority, for verification that it has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or

(b) providing to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying—

(i) that the dog is or has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or

(ii) that for the reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner before a date specified in the certificate.

(3A) If a certificate under subsection (3)(b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority, the owner must produce to the territorial authority, within 1 month after the date specified in the certificate, a further certificate specified under subsection (3)(b)(i).