Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
I move, That the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration.
Ensuring safety around dogs depends on a combination of four principles: good law, effective enforcement by local councils, community support for the councils’ work, and responsible dog ownership. Good law alone is not enough to stop dog attacks, and this law and the principles it embodies need to be supported by the community.
The Government has made a number of changes to the dog control law and is looking to outlaw further lists of dogs in the future. In short, though, this bill requires councils to include in their dog policies any additional matters that are specified in regulations.
The bill changes the way in which the law deals with menacing dogs. It requires a mandatory neutering of dogs that are classified as menacing, on the basis of their belonging to a breed or being a type of dog listed in schedule 4 of the Act. The bill simplifies the process for adding further breeds and types of dogs to that schedule.
The bill continues the Government’s work of keeping dog laws under review and constantly improving them, for the security of our communities. This bill is part of that ongoing process, and I therefore commend it to the House.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
I rise to speak to the bill. National will support the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) being referred to the select committee, because this issue is of concern to New Zealanders. But sadly, this is a poor excuse for a bill. It is all of 4 pages and is simply window dressing to give the appearance of doing something. There has been no real problem analysis, so all we have ever seen in respect of dog policy is constant tinkering and nothing really substantive to deal with irresponsible dog owners. That is whom we need to be dealing with—irresponsible dog owners. The Minister talked about good law. He is the very Minister who, in talking about changes to the New Zealand Fire Service, could not even do the financial analysis to support any recommendations for change. The Minister is only tinkering with the issues and putting out yet another discussion document. There are to be lots more talkfests and another review, but nothing substantive that will make a difference.
This issue is about irresponsible dog owners. They are the people who will never register their dog, and they expect everybody else to pick up the tab for that. It is the irresponsible dog owners, those who do not register their dogs, whose dogs are the majority of the animals found wandering on the streets, and we do not want them to be there. But everybody else bears the cost for those people, who think they have a right to have a dog, and who get off scot-free when it comes to the cost of policing their dogs.
What does the bill really do? Essentially, the bill provides for three things: policy to be done through regulation, the schedule of breeds of banned dogs to be done by Order in Council—and that can be done by the Minister—and councils to adopt policy within 12 months of the regulation having been made. Let us look at the first one: policy by regulation. This is where the Government has failed to do any real problem analysis. It still does not understand the issues, and has put out yet another review consultation document in respect of the Dog Control Act. How many changes have there been under this current Government, since it has been in office, in respect of that Act? I would suggest that there have been more than enough for the Government to finally understand what the issues are. But, hang on! The Prime Minister needs to look good, so that is why this bill is here. It is 4 pages long, and it does not really do very much at all. Although this bill is about amending the Act to allow for policy to be done by regulation, there is no real policy to go with it. The Government has put up a 4-page bill in order to make whatever changes it wants through regulation, without the openness and transparency that a full legislative process has to offer.
I will give members a classic example of a situation where openness and transparency have been abused through the regulatory process—that is, legislation by stealth in respect of the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill. That bill, which was introduced to Parliament by Dianne Yates, was dropped because there was no support for it. There was no majority support and no public support for the bill, so it was dropped, canned, trashed, or discharged—whatever we want to call it. Nobody wanted a bar of it, so that bill disappeared. And what happened? The Minister went along and talked to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The committee has now included in an animal welfare code for dogs the ban on the docking of dogs’ tails. That is a back-door method; it is not a case of openness and transparency. It does not provide the full public input that should be provided, and that is what happens when we try to do something through regulation. It is a back-door method. That is exactly what has happened with regard to the ban on the docking of dogs’ tails. It has gone through the back door because the Government could not get it through the front door.
I turn to the second aspect of the bill—the power of the Minister to add to the schedule of banned breeds by Order in Council. There is some evidence that the breeds currently listed in the schedule as banned breeds are part of a significant number of the dog attacks that occur in America, so they are part of our banned breeds schedule here in New Zealand. However, other breeds have not been identified in the same way as those breeds. The breeds on the banned list in the schedule are fine, but other breeds have not been identified in the same way as them. One of the biggest problems we have with regard to this issue is identifying the actual breed of a dog. There are many cross-breeds in this country and it is very, very difficult to identify them. Vets do not want to do that; dog owners do not want to do that. We can call the dog concerned a mongrel. Why would we add more breeds to the schedule? The use of DNA testing to establish the actual breed of a dog is plain silly.
Let us face it; it does not matter what sort of breed a dog is. Any dog has the potential to attack a person—any dog has that potential. For the Prime Minister to say that if certain dog breeds are banned then dogs will stop attacking people is absolute nonsense. It is simply nonsense; it makes no common sense at all. Actually, common sense saw Annette King coming here with her Electoral Finance Bill. It was smothered in her bosomy embrace, and in that instance it is unlikely to see the light of day for some time. However, in spite of that common sense will not die, even though it is taking an incredibly severe beating at the hands of the current Government.
I now want to talk about the third aspect of the bill, whereby councils are required to adopt a policy no later than 12 months after a regulation has been made. Councils must use the special consultative process, and that actually comes at a cost to councils. I just wonder whether it would have been better to allow councils to adopt the policy at their earliest possible convenience. That could have allowed them, maybe, to piggyback that consultative process on the back of that for some other issues, thereby reducing the cost of having to adopt policy that is instigated through regulation within 12 months of the regulation having been adopted. I think some consideration needs to be given to the costs on councils. I do not see any consideration of that in the bill.
But as I said previously, there is no policy to speak of within this bill. Here we are, 7 years down the track under the current Government, and it has still failed to identify the issues substantively, address them, and deal with them by targeting irresponsible dog owners and in some way trying to recognise the cost to councils of dog control. But, no, the Government has failed to do that. If we look at the bill, we see that there is some confusion around one of the issues in relation to the neutering of dogs. The explanatory note of the bill talks about neutering being compulsory—as I understood it when I read it—but the bill talks about neutering being at the discretion of the local authority. So even with just a simple, 4-page bill, this current Government still cannot get it right. Government members talk on and on about doing something, but they have come up with a bill of about 4 pages with nothing substantial in it, at all, to deal with irresponsible dog owners. They have completely missed that point, and that is something we need to deal with.
We need to deal to the irresponsible dog owners—those people who do not contain their dogs properly, do not look after their dogs properly, and do not socialise them properly. We need to make sure that they bear the brunt and the cost of dog control, so that it does not fall so much on the shoulders of all the responsible dog owners. We need to go a lot further than this bill, which really is appalling. I take issue with the Minister when he talks about good law, because this Government does not know what good law is.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
The previous speaker very much reminded me of the notion of the glass being half full or half empty. That member always sees a glass that is half empty. Are those members supporting the bill or not supporting it in its first reading and referral to the select committee? After that speech, I have to say I do not know. How about that member, for once in her political life, on behalf of the people of Coromandel, being a little bit positive? The people of Coromandel want a positive member. Just for once in that member’s life, could she be a little bit positive?
She knows, as we all do, that dog safety is achieved through good law that is kept under review in the light of experience, good enforcement by local authorities, community support for local enforcement, and responsible dog ownership. As that member knows in her heart of hearts, there is no one magic solution or magic bullet for the myriad of issues surrounding responsible dog management and dog control. That member may find that it would be very, very good for her health if she was positive. As it is the Christmas season and all that, it would be really good for that member, just once in her life, to say there are good things in this legislation.
Let us get down at the select committee and get through the bill. That is positive leadership. Without further ado I commend this bill, because I am a positive member, and I wish the members of the select committee well in their consideration of this bill.
Gerry Brownlee
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
Is it not extraordinary that on the last day of the parliamentary year, on which we are under urgency, the Government’s great moment to address the issues of the nation is by way of the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2)? I have to tell members of the Government that when they are taxing New Zealanders to death, when we are dropping in the OECD, when people are dying in Wellington because of failures in our health system, and when there are 5,000 kids who are not at school, I do not think that the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2), under urgency, will save the Government’s bacon. This bill is pathetically small. I question the Government on having the House in urgency to argue a measure that is of such little consequence.
Let us just recite the history of what has occurred in respect of dog control. We had the awful tragedy involving Carolina Anderson from Auckland. The Government’s great answer was that we had to have microchipping of dogs. If only we had microchipping of dogs, then dog attacks would stop! Well, since then, each year there has been a tragedy. I know that in Gerry Brownlee’s electorate there was an awful tragedy this year. So the Government, once again, brings in more regulation. More laws is the answer, and somehow this bill will solve the problem that the Government told us was solved in 2002, solved in 2005, and here we are in 2007—
Anne TolleyHon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
—in urgency.
I look at the detail of the bill, and I say: “God bless Brian Neeson.” In 1997, members of this House will recall, Brian Neeson brought to this House a bill to ban particular dog breeds. I checked on that. What did the Labour members say in 1997 when Brian Neeson proposed a ban on particular dog breeds?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Labour members said it would not work. In fact, they vigorously opposed Brian Neeson’s bill. I was somewhat gobsmacked, I have to say to the members opposite, to read in the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2), 10 years later, that Brian Neeson’s idea has been resurrected.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Under urgency. Do members know what I think is really extraordinary? I think that Labour members, in the 8 years Labour has been in office, have become so bereft of any ideas about where to take our country that they thought they would check out the old books, dredge through the history, and see whether they could find an idea anywhere. They came across Brian Neeson’s idea, and they said: “Let’s make it look like we’re doing something. Let’s pick up Brian Neeson’s 1997 bill about banning particular dog breeds and bring that into the House. Perhaps that might save our electoral bacon.” Well, it will not. This bill will make as much difference to protecting children from dog attacks as did the changes they made in 2002 and in 2005, which equally were failures.
I want to draw the attention of the House to just how minor the provisions in this bill are. It is not as though there is not provision in the existing law to ban particular dog breeds. All this bill does is make a minor change to the procedure by which we can ban particular dog breeds. There are some minor changes in respect of the policies that councils need to have in respect of dog control. I have to say to members opposite that if there is an issue that will change the votes of New Zealanders next year, it will be the one of extra costs on ratepayers. Every single time this Parliament passes laws that impose additional costs on councils, those costs go straight bang on to the cost of rates. After the last 8 years of this Labour Government we have seen rate increases running at more than double the rate of inflation. In my area, rates today are 50 percent higher than they were when Labour came to Government. When I met with some leaders from local government this morning—[Interruption] I tell Mr Barker that they said they have had a gutsful of the Government passing law after law—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
As my colleague John Carter, National’s spokesperson on local government and a champion for ratepayers, says, 69 laws have been passed by this Government that impose additional costs on ratepayers through this sort of legislation. So when this bill goes to the select committee, the question that will be on the lips of National Party members is what the additional bill for the ratepayer will be. Does Darren Hughes know what it is? How much will this cost the ratepayers in his electorate?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
He did not even think to ask those sorts of things. You see, whether it is this bill or the preceding bill, the Government always has a plan and a strategy. The Government thinks: “If only we passed a law that made every council have a policy on home affordability, then somehow houses would be more affordable. If only we passed a law that required every council to have a policy on dogs, then somehow we would reduce dog attacks.”
I say to the members opposite that the Government’s obsession with bureaucracy and strategies and all this muck makes little difference—as we see by their previous record on dog attacks. National says it is time to start thinking about the ratepayers. It is time to start thinking about practical measures. I would love to hear the next speaker from the Labour Party talk about the success of Labour’s policy of requiring the microchipping of dogs. That was the last great saviour of the people of New Zealand. Has that been a great success?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I ask Miss Mackey whether dog microchipping has been a great success.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
No, she does not want to answer. You see, what Labour did was pass a bill requiring the microchipping of dogs, which has made not an iota of difference. It has increased the costs for dog owners. It has increased the compliance costs for our councils. Here we are, on the last day of Parliament, under urgency, again debating legislation dealing with dog control. We say this bill is incredibly weak and incredibly minor, and it will not make a difference.
In respect of dog control, we should actually give councils less bureaucracy and more freedom to get on with their business. The penalties, for instance, that we apply to people who are involved in dangerous dog attacks are pathetic. Increasing penalties would be a low-cost way to make some of the irresponsible dog owners responsible. When I looked at this bill I thought that maybe the Government had finally had a dose of common sense and will impose some tough penalties on people whose dangerous dogs maliciously attack innocent New Zealanders. I looked at all of the clauses—it is not a long bill; it has only nine clauses—but not one of them addressed the issue of penalties, which I think most New Zealanders want. I think most New Zealanders want tougher penalties for those people who have irresponsible, dangerous dogs.
I say to the members opposite that if they want to have law that will address the issue of dangerous dogs, then they should punish those who are irresponsible, get off the backs of the responsible dog owners, and stop applying additional costs on councils, which is making the job of our elected mayors and councillors so difficult. You see, what this bill really says is that Labour has learnt absolutely nothing. For all that we spent on the inquiry into rates, Labour is continuing to ignore the fact that every time this Parliament passes laws that increase the compliance and bureaucracy of our councils, all we do is add to rates bills. This bill is not an answer to the issues of dangerous dog attacks; it is just more bureaucracy from a dying Labour Government that is bereft of ideas on how to take this country forward.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I listened with interest to the member Nick Smith. He took his full call and I am none the wiser about whether he will support the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2). I am absolutely clueless as to what he is going to do. He went all round the bushes and back again and could not even tell the House whether he will support the bill.
He does not know. I would not mind betting that National will support it. I think it will support the bill. National members are totally negative but they will support it.
There he is. There is old Gerry Brownlee. He is awake after his night on the town. He is awake.
The Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very simple bill. It is very straightforward. It does not attempt to replace the Dog Control Act 1996 at all. It is not designed to do that. It simply amends that Act to address, I suggest to the members over there if they read it, two key areas. One, it poses a “Duty of territorial authorities to adopt policy on dogs”—I am reading that; it is a heading to clause 4. And two, clause 5 inserts a new section 33E headed “Effect of classification as menacing dog”. A dog that can be determined as a menacing dog has to be neutered, if not immediately then in due course. In the fullness of time, that will reduce considerably the number of menacing dogs; if not down to zero it will reduce them considerably over time.
If the member cannot work that out then he should not be here.
This is a very simple bill. It is obvious the public has some concern about menacing dogs out there. I think it is very straightforward. New Zealand First will support it going to select committee. Thank you.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
I commend the previous speaker, Peter Brown, for his commendable brevity. I will do likewise.
Despite previous difficulties over bills dealing with dog control measures, the Green Party will be supporting the referral of the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) to the select committee. It seems, on the face of it, to be a sensible little bill, allowing councils more scope, flexibility, and control over what they can do about dog dangers in their local areas.
I have to say that I for one certainly believe that, in many ways, details of animal control do more logically lie within the purview of local government rather than taking up extensive time in this Parliament and its select committee process, as has happened in recent times.
I am pleased to see this bill going forward. Unlike the National Party, but like New Zealand First, we are very happy to make our position clear. We will be supporting this bill and we just hope it goes through with some speed.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2). I greet Mr Gerry Brownlee this morning. I know he had a bit of a “wuff” night last night.
TE URUROA FLAVELL Link to this
I just thought I would cheer him up this morning. I will tell a story. In the heart of the Waiariki electorate, about an hour’s drive south-east of Rotorua, there is a small township with “wuffly” 2,000 people in it.
TE URUROA FLAVELL Link to this
Let me continue. The township is the doorway to a region full of beautiful bush, rivers, forests, and farmland. Within this rohe are the marae of Moewhare, Tīpapa, Rangitahi, and Painoaiho. This is the tribal nation of Ngāti Manawa, īa. Beside them is the nation of Ngāti Whare, who act as kaitiaki of the lush natural forests of Whirinaki, Te Whāitī Nui a Toi, and Te Urewera. There is also the legendary Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tāwhiuau. The township I am talking about is Murupara. It would be good for members to go and see that town. It is an awesome little town and there are great people there. The downside, of course, is that in April of this year, Murupara was known for only one thing. On 21 April Virginia Ohlsen lost her life there after being attacked by a pit bull and Staffordshire cross belonging to her nephew. The country watched in horror as the story unfolded about how it came to be that a 56-year-old mother was mauled to death by an unregistered dog, literally in her own backyard. But it did not stop there. Two days later an 85-year-old Auckland woman was bitten on the face by a Rottweiler in a supermarket car-park, and exactly 1 week after the fatal attack in Murupara 8-year-old Jackson Williams and 15-year-old Te Aroha Pukuivi were attacked by two pit bulls in Auckland, leaving the youngest hospitalised.
These attacks reinforce the need for owners to register their dogs and keep them fenced and under control. In all of the April attacks it was unregistered dogs that caused the problem. If there are any positives about this whole situation, there is only one. The owners of the dogs that were the cause of the mauling in Murupara and South Auckland did stand up and take responsibility. They were prepared to take the consequences of the dog attacks.
This bill makes it clear that the responsibility for the control of menacing dogs is a collective responsibility. The bill will establish new opportunities for central government to work proactively with local government to discuss dog policy matters. It requires each council to take the initiative in adopting a policy relating to dogs. It also establishes a new classification that makes it utterly clear that a dog owner must not allow a dog classified as a menacing dog to roam at large without being muzzled.
The Māori Party appreciates the fact that the bill takes into account the need for transitional provisions. We believe that the capacity for owners to make the appropriate adjustments within the 6-month time frame is a reasonable measure, and we hope that it will assist compliance with this bill.
I am not going to take too much more time than is necessary to express our support for this bill to go to the select committee, but I do want to end on a positive note by referring to a document entitled Murupara Dreaming, which reflects the current initiatives across this community to make a difference. The document I am talking about refers to a community of “determination, passion, people stepping up and leading, people who can be bothered, and people who truly care. This is because, through this process, we have seen ways to lift our community, we have seen the opportunities for ourselves and for our moko, taiohi, and whānau, and we’ve realised that no one can change things as much as we can change things for ourselves.”
These words are from Jacob Te Kurapa of the Whakatāne District Council, and they reinforce for me the potential that all of our communities have to take leadership amongst their people and make progress across all areas. For me this is reflected in Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tawhiuau, a special character school in Murupara, where celebrating Ngāti Manawatanga is a way of life. Te Reo Irirangi o Tāwhiuau 99.7FM based at that kura is their link into that community and broadcasts every day, because of the volunteers and community spirit. Actually the students of the school are the backbone of the station, using te reo Māori throughout the day.
The enthusiasm reflected in Murupara and expressed in the community report I referred to earlier is, indeed, a positive context for this reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2), and gives us all the confidence we need to know that local solutions can, and are, the best approach for local problems. Kia ora tātou.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
I want to take a brief call on the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) to make just two broad points. The first is that I have always had a strong view that we should be moving towards the compulsory neutering of dangerous dogs. That has been reinforced by a number of incidents that we have seen over the years, and I think the most particular and recent of those was the incident in Christchurch when parents were innocently in a park with their children, and a dog actually broke out from a neighbouring property to savage one of those children. People should not be under that risk when they are in a public place. So the bill’s provisions that go some way down the path of providing for the compulsory neutering of what are called menacing dogs is welcome in that respect. Those dogs are listed in schedule 4 of the legislation. But there has to be a question remaining as to whether that schedule is complete. That is a matter that, I think, will be judged over the period of time.
The second point I want to make is the more substantive one. I support the moves that are contained in this bill to require local authorities that say they want to take a more active role to, in fact, have a more active role in respect of dog control policy. But there is one glaring omission in the legislation that will make it difficult for that role to be effective, and until that omission is addressed it will put some measure of doubt upon the credibility of our overall approach to dog control policy.
I want to quote from the Government’s own Cabinet paper on this issue. That Cabinet paper warned: “There is little systematic information collected or monitored on the incidence and characteristics of dog bites or attacks.” The paper states further: “It is therefore difficult to build an overall picture of the effectiveness of the dog control regime.” The Government’s response to that pretty trenchant criticism from officials was to indicate that it is prepared to look at ways to improve data collection. But that is a very woolly and vague statement. I will not attempt to pick up the phrase used by the previous speaker, but I think he would describe it as “wuffly”—it means absolutely nothing. Until we have a compulsory data collection regime administered by local authorities whereby we know precisely the incidence of attacks, the impact of those attacks on children and other persons, and the types of breeds that are responsible for those attacks, our dog control policy will continue to be ineffectual. This bill fails to go that far. It is a welcome first step, but it is not going to deal with the fundamental issue, and we are still going to continue to find incidents occurring where the safety of the public is put at risk.
Although we support the introduction of this bill as a step towards an ultimate policy, we note that, in fact, it really sets up a consultation process, and until that process has been completed and more definitive steps have been put in place, we have to conclude that the proposals contained in this bill will be of limited value only.
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this
I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to this first reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2). We will be opposing this bill. Why? Because it will have absolutely no effect at all. How many times have we seen dog control bills come before Parliament and enacted into law, and nothing happens? Children keep being bitten.
The first point I want to address is why this bill—a very simple bill we have been told by many members in this House—is being considered as part of this urgency motion. Is it really a matter of such urgency for the country that everybody sitting at home listening to this debate with bated breath is waiting for this bill to be enacted? I think not! So, like the microchipping legislation, we are going to pass this bill off to a select committee today, to impose more rules and regulations around the issue of dog control that will have absolutely no effect. The issue should not be addressed in this forum—in urgency. Actually it should not have been put forward at all, but given that it has, it should have been put forward in the normal course of events and debated in that manner.
The dogs, of course, are not the issue. The responsibility lies with the owners—something that is completely overlooked in this legislation. Neutering dogs will not solve anything. The responsible owners of so-called dangerous dogs will go ahead, as they are required to by law, and have their dogs registered, have their dogs microchipped, and have their dogs neutered. The problem owners—those who train their dogs to fight—have not had their dogs microchipped and have not had them registered, so why does anybody in his or her right mind think that they will have them neutered?
This is just a further example of a knee-jerk reaction, and how many times, particularly with dog control laws, have we seen this happen? Far too many. There is a terrible event that gets a lot of media attention, so the Government rushes to develop new legislation in a knee-jerk response that will achieve absolutely nothing but will make it seem to the public as if the matter is being taken care of and being taken very seriously. ACT is proud to be the only party that has consistently opposed dog microchipping, which is a cost to responsible dog owners and a further driving underground of irresponsible and sometimes criminal dog owners.
Dog laws—and this point was raised by a member from the National Party who I heard talking on the radio—just add more compliance costs for the law abiding. New dog laws will add just more regulation, as I have already outlined, more costs, and more fines for the law-abiding dog owners who go ahead and do the right thing.
Very few of the dogs that have been registered actually ever attack anyone. It is the unregistered dogs that create the problems. That points out just how ludicrous this legislation is. In fact, it is a fantasy to think that those who do not microchip or register their dogs will go ahead and neuter them when this law says they have to. It is such a fantasy that we should include with this legislation the muzzling of dragons and the putting of leashes on unicorns. That would be about as much use as this particular bill.
Dog rangers say that the real problem dogs are owned by lawless owners, and we have seen that time and time again. The worst culprits are the gangs that train dogs to fight and attack and do not register them in the first place. These new laws will have absolutely no effect on the lawless. The fact is that the problem has never been a lack of laws. They are already in place, as everybody in this House knows, but there is a lack of targeted enforcement against criminals who own these dogs.
So what would we do? That is what everybody always wants to know. What would the ACT party do? We oppose this bill, but what would we do? I have beaten Darren Hughes to it. He really wanted to stand to speak on this bill and ask that question, so I will answer it for him. Rather than impose knee-jerk legislation, ACT would impose sanctions where the responsibility lies—with the dog owner. I invite somebody from the Government to stand up and tell me how many convictions and imprisonments have resulted from serious dog attacks on children. What happens instead is that the dogs are put down and the irresponsible dog owners—many of them being patched gang members, training their dogs to fight in filmed exhibitions—simply get a new dog and start the same process all over again. If people train their dogs to be a weapon they should be punished accordingly if that weapon then harms someone. That is something that this House should think about. Given that I presume this bill will go forward to a select committee, I hope that those things will be taken into consideration when submitters are heard and the amendments made at Committee stage.
ACT will oppose this legislation. We like to see sensible legislation put forward—laws that will have some teeth and can do something, rather than useless laws that will achieve nothing but will lull people into a false sense of security to make them think that matters are being taken seriously. That is not the case with this legislation, and we will be opposing it for that very reason.
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this
When Peter Brown from New Zealand First spoke, he accused members in the House of sleeping. He is the only member I have found who can actually stand up and speak while still asleep! I think he is amazing how he does that.
Simon PowerAbsolutely—multitasking, and a male to boot! That is saying something.
I want to take a call on the bill before us for the very reason that, yet again, it is a bill about giving Labour members an opportunity next year, in 2008, which is election year folks, to stand up and say “Look what we’re doing! We’re doing something about dog control.” This is just a political publicity stunt.
John HayesIt is a gimmick, just like the bill that we had before about affordable housing. It is just another opportunity for Government members to say: “Aren’t we a good Government. We are worried about affordable housing. Look what we are doing. We have introduced this bill.” The fact is, of course, that bill puts huge costs on to local government and ratepayers, and this bill is in exactly the same category.
Let me put before members the reasons that the other parties in the House should be concerned about this bill. The first thing the bill does, apart from giving the Government the opportunity to get out there and say “We are really concerned about dog control and dogs biting people.”, is to take away from the public the right to have an input into how dog control in this country runs. When we read this bill, we see that it shifts the ability of Parliament to debate legislation and changes to regulation. The consequence of that, of course, is that the Government will then go and sneak behind closed doors and make all sorts of changes that suit it and are to its advantage, just as it is doing with the Electoral Finance Bill, and the public will not know about it until they run against it. That is the reason this bill is here.
Let us be very clear that there are two things that this Parliament and the public of this nation should be concerned about with this bill. Firstly, there is the fact that the Government will give itself the power and the opportunity to make regulations. This is the Labour socialist Government that wants to nanny manage everything in this society. Well, here is another example of its hands-on control: “We won’t tell anyone. We’re merely going to make the decisions for you. You don’t have to worry, we’ll take the bite out of this country.” Well, actually, that will not happen at all. Rules and regulations will be made that affect the public, affect the dog owners of this nation, affect the kennel clubs, and affect the people who care about dogs—and they will not know. That is what this Government does. That is what it is about. It is about managing everyone’s lives for them rather than people taking responsibility. Added to that is the question of who will pay. Is it local government, the ratepayers—
Hang on a minute; it will not be just dog owners. It will be ratepayers and local government too. Of course, dog owners will pay. There is no question about that. They will pay through their fees and regulations, but local government has to administer this in conjunction with the other 69 such bills this Government has passed since coming into office. Actually, it will be 71 bills because we have the affordable housing legislation as well as this bill, and there are two or three other such bills in the pipeline. Just about every day local government and ratepayers end up having to pay more because this Government says so. This bill will end up putting more costs on to dog owners and ratepayers. There will be more bureaucracy and more local authority staff, and, as a consequence, the costs to ratepayers will continue to increase.
We know in this nation that there is already a rates revolt. In fact, the Government was so concerned that last year it had a rates review. Some of us remember that. The Government asked for a rates review to be done. I have to say that the review came out with some dopey stuff but it also came out with some very good stuff. I ask the Government this question: which one of the recommendations made in the rates review has been implemented?
Really? That is astonishing. Can I just ask this question then: what was the purpose of the rates review?
And shifting the focus off the Labour Government, so that the Government would not be blamed. It was just to shift the focus and take the heat out of the issue—to do anything that moves it.
That is exactly what this bill is for. It is exactly the same thing. It is merely there so that the next time someone is bitten by a dog, the Government can say: “Hang on a minute, hold it, don’t worry, I know your bum is hurting where the dog bit it, I know the stitches are not good, but, don’t worry, here is a bit of a paper called the Dog Control Amendment Act. That will make your bum feel better.” Actually, it will not at all. It will not do anything, and that is the problem.
It seriously worries me that this nanny State Government continually wants to control the lives—the destiny—of everyone in this nation. This bill is more window dressing and it will merely cost money. It will cost dog owners money and it will cost ratepayers money. It will cause more bureaucracy, and it will achieve nothing. If National thought this bill could make some difference, any difference at all, we would say it was worth supporting through all stages.
One interesting thing is that this bill will add to the list of banned breeds. Although this is a silly bill and will add costs, National is interested to see what the public think, and for that reason we will support the bill’s referral to the select committee. But let me be very clear that in the select committee the Government will have to convince us that this bill is worth continuing with. Unless there is an advantage to the public and to the people we represent, why would our party and other parties in this House support the bill? One of the things that has always worried me in this Parliament is our tendency to put through more and more legislation, more rules and regulations, more control, more costs, more—[Interruption]
There he goes! I have just told the House that we will support the bill’s referral to the select committee. Sandra Goudie said we will support it to the select committee, Nick Smith said we will support it to the select committee, and I said that, just 15 seconds ago. Never mind; poor Mr Brown is tired and he has dozed off. But that is OK. As I said, he is the only member who can stand, speak, and be asleep—all at the same time. We have just proven that.
The problem with the bill is that there will be more costs. There will be more compliance costs and more costs on ratepayers. In fact, this year ratepayers will face huge rate increases across the country. The cost will be close to double figures, and in some cases it will be well in excess. The average increase is likely to be 7 or 8 percent, all because this Government has imposed costs on local government. This bill is another example of that. It will add to the worries and problems of this Government, and when the public look at legislation like the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) and the housing affordability legislation we have just put through its first stage, they will realise why they have high rates bills.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I am happy to take a call on the first reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2), which will be going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we look forward to a robust debate there. I say to the member who has just resumed his seat that that was a “bob each way” speech. He spent the entire time opposing the bill and opposing the Dog Control Act, and just before sitting down he said: “By the way, we’re going to support it.” Labour knows that whenever something happens in this country to do with dangerous dogs, National members leap to their feet and ask what the Government has done, and what it is doing, to control dangerous dogs. Well, the Government is constantly looking at the current laws, the tools provided to local government, to deal with dangerous dogs. We have only to look across to Australia, which has had microchipping. I noted that the honourable John Carter did not mention the very good speech he gave in this House when he was a Minister in the National Government. He was not the Minister responsible for that legislation but he was a Minister, and he supported the microchipping of dogs and said he looked forward to a bill coming into this House, because microchipping was a cost-effective and simple way of keeping track of dogs. I agree with that member, even if he has done a 180-degree about-face—a flip-flop—on that issue.
We have found that countries like ours that have gone with microchipping have been able to record the behaviour of a dog, in a way that we have not done before—say, a dog that has shown menacing behaviour. Without that, it is very easy to move that dog to another territorial authority where it has no record of that dog’s previous behaviour, or to swap owners. With a dog that is microchipped, its behaviour will be recorded so even if the owner tries to change the dog’s location, or change its name, that local authority will know that it is a dangerous dog, and that dog can be destroyed before we see another tragedy like we have had. So it is typical of National members to say that because some people may not comply with the current law, we should not do anything at all to make sure that our laws are as strong as possible.
This is another classic example of the Labour-led Government, and the parties that support this bill, taking an approach that will prevent dog attacks and give local authorities the ability to track these dangerous dogs and destroy them, before they attack a child. We will never know how many attacks we manage to prevent; that is what happens when we look to prevent attacks rather than simply clean up the mess, or be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
I look forward to this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am sure we will have a robust debate on it, as with the previous Dog Control Amendment Bill in the last term of Parliament. I look forward to the bill providing local government people with more measures to be able to deal with the dogs they have to deal with every single day, and being able to give those people the powers to do what they need to do to take these dogs off our streets. I am sure that another speaker from the National Party will stand and absolutely oppose everything about this bill, and in the last 30 seconds say that National will vote for it. I am very happy to commend the bill to the House.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this
The National Party will support the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) going to select committee.
I will say it again, because the Government does not seem to hear the message. The National Party will support the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) going to select committee—and only to the select committee. We want to make some points about the bill at the select committee. I will cover some of those points today.
We all support dog control. Of course we all support dog control. Everybody in this House, and most thinking people in this country, support dog control—just like we all support affordable housing. Of course we support affordable housing. We in the National Party just take a different point of view from the Government’s view that we need to apply a huge cost upon local government. It might sound a bit like a broken record for me to say this—but I do believe it—the real effect of bills such as this dog control legislation and the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill, which was just debated in this House, is to impose cost on local government.
It sounds boring, I know, but when I was involved in local government, time after time we were dealing with legislation—this micromanaging of the Labour Government coming down to local government—that we were required to turn into a by-law, at huge cost and with huge time pressure. At the Waitaki District Council, where I was deputy mayor, we were sitting in a costly council meeting talking about some by-law we had to put into effect, and we started doing a count of the number of pieces of legislation that were being handed down. At that time I think we got to 69. There were 69 pieces of legislation that we were compelled to do something about in the Waitaki District Council. So we said to the local member of Parliament at the time, David Parker, that the Government is imposing cost on local government. Do members know what the former Otago MP said to us? He denied it was happening, because Labour Government members cannot see what is right in front of their faces. That is the effect that legislation such as this dog control bill is having on the sector. We ask to what effect. I think that is the debate we will have in the select committee.
This bill, which National will support going to select committee, is all about a Government, under urgency, trying to look as if it is doing something. This bill, under urgency, is about the Government’s desperate need to look like it is actually doing something. It is a bit like the affordable housing legislation. It thinks it is doing something about affordable housing. Well, actually, the Government is not doing anything about affordable housing, because so many years will go by until the policy comes into effect that today’s people who desperately need housing in places like Central Otago and Queenstown will have moved on. It is bureaucratic legislation.
If we look at the general policy statement and the intention of this bill—which, of course, National supports—we see that the bill will “make it mandatory for dogs classified as menacing by virtue of belonging to a breed or type listed in Schedule 4 of the Act to be neutered.” We support that going to select committee. But the next sentence says: “Also, the process for the addition of a breed or type of dog to Schedule 4 of the Act will be simplified.” Aha! So here we get to the nub of this bill; it is the process. The process is the problem with this bill. You know, it sounds good—it sounds fantastic—but, as with many bills, the devil is in the detail. Once again, this bill dumps on local government. On the one hand it is dumping on local government—yet again, for the 72nd time in recent history; but on the other hand—and here we get to it—the bill is making the real decisions on dog control by stealth, regulation, and Order in Council.
I turn to various parts of this very small bill, which we are debating under urgency. Clause 4 of Part 1 is entitled: “Duty of territorial authorities to adopt policy on dogs”. Does that not just reek of ratepayer money? Does that not just reek of councils sitting for days on end, and officers writing yet more reports because of this amendment bill? Does that not just reek of an increase in the general rate? Have we not just had the strongest message from local authorities, from local government, about the unaffordability of rates? Has this Labour Government listened? No. This Labour Government continues to foist upon us bills like the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill, which was debated just shortly before this bill. It just reeks of putting cost on local government.
This bill spells it out even further. This Government just loves tying up local government in red tape. Clause 4(2) inserts new subsection 5A into the principal Act and states that territorial authorities must fulfil the requirement to include any matters prescribed in regulations in their policy “using the special consultative procedure.” Oh, no! Do members know how much cost is involved in that, and how much timeliness? And what will it achieve?
I turn to the new subsection 33E, which is entitled: “Effect of classification as menacing dog”. It sounds good. Subsection (1) states: “If a dog is classified as a menacing dog under section 33A or 33C, the owner of the dog must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or in any private way without being muzzled …”. It sounds good, but then we get to subsection (2), which states: “Subsection (1) does not apply if—(a) the dog is completely confined within a vehicle or cage;”. That is OK, but then we get to paragraph (b), which states that subsection (1) does not apply if “in respect of any dog or class of dog, a territorial authority considers that it need not be muzzled in any specified circumstances …”.
So what does this mean? It means that it is the responsibility of a territorial local authority to decide whether a dangerous dog, as classified under schedule 4, needs to be muzzled. That decision lies with the territorial local authority. That is not a decision that should have to be made by a bunch of councillors living in a community. How will it pan out? What will the local authorities do with this particular provision? The provision states that a dog need not be muzzled if “in respect of any dog or class of dog, a territorial authority considers that it need not be muzzled in any specific circumstances …”. What does that mean? Does it mean that the territorial local authority will have a hearing? Will it have a special council meeting? Will it have a public meeting? Will it have a submission process? What does this mean for the local authority? How will it be handled when some dog owner who has a registered dangerous dog says: “Oh, well, no, I don’t think my dangerous dog, under schedule 4, should have to be muzzled in public, because it likes to go for a walk in the park on a Sunday morning. I promise it won’t bite anyone, Mr Mayor.”? How is a territorial local authority meant to handle a decision like that?
I move on to new subsection 33E(3), which states the requirement for an owner of a menacing dog to “produce to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a veterinarian …”. Is the Government kidding? In reality, the dangerous dogs in our society, in the main, do not go to veterinarians.
I turn now to new section 78A, which is inserted by clause 7 of the bill. The section is entitled: “Regulations amending Schedule 4”. Here we get to it: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, amend Schedule 4 …”. This should be the decision of Parliament. That is why we are here. I am elected as the member for the Otago electorate to take issues like this back to my electorate, take soundings from the people I represent, and bring those opinions back to the Chamber to debate. That is what we are here for as MPs.
I look forward to this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, where we will have the opportunity to debate these issues and to tell this Government to stop offloading on local government and stop trying to look as if it is actually doing something. We support this bill going to select committee with reservations.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.
Ayes 119
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand National 48
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 2 (Copeland, Field)
Noes 2
Bill read a first time.