Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this
I move, That pursuant to section 78B of the Dog Control Act 1996, this House approve the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010, made under section 78A of that Act. This motion stood referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. In its report presented on 25 November 2010 the committee recommended that the motion be approved. The Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 will add the perro de presa Canario breed of dog to the list of dogs banned from importation into New Zealand in schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Adding the perro de presa Canario to schedule 4 is a precautionary public safety measure to protect New Zealanders and prevent this potentially aggressive breed from becoming established in the New Zealand dog population.
The perro de presa Canario is a large, heavy dog with powerful jaws and a documented tendency to exhibit aggressive behaviour. The breed originates from the Canary Islands, where it has been used for organised dog fights. The tendency of the perro de presa Canario to exhibit aggressive behaviour or attack and the size and strength of the breed make it of particular concern, because of the seriousness of injuries it could inflict. There have been two known fatal attacks involving the breed in the United States since 2001.
The breed is currently not known to be present in New Zealand, and is prohibited from importation into Australia. The Brazilian fila, dogo Argentino, the Japanese tosa breeds, and the American pit bull terrier type are already listed in schedule 4 of the Act as prohibited from importation. Dogs of the breeds or types listed that are already present in New Zealand must be classified as menacing by local authorities, must be muzzled when at large, and must be neutered.
Hon Rick BarkerThis measure does not affect the proposed review of public safety around dogs, I tell Mr Barker. The review will look at the underlying principles of public safety around dogs, and the effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime. We will seek a better understanding of how to improve public safety around dogs, while ensuring that responsible dog owners are not disadvantaged. Thank you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
These are 5-minute calls. There will be a 1-minute warning bell.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this
I think it is appropriate to congratulate the Associate Minister of Local Government. I think this is the first order or bill that the Minister has brought to the House. Is that appropriate?
I thought the pronunciation of the different dog varieties was quite superb. We on this side of the House support Government motion No. 3, about the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. I think it is self-evident that this is a good, appropriate, and logical move to add this menacing breed to the schedule of dogs contained in the Dog Control Act that pose a threat to the citizens of New Zealand, were they to be let loose on the streets of our towns and suburbs.
I want to use these few minutes as an opportunity to say that we have a problem in our country with dog attacks on innocent citizens. Only recently we had a string of attacks, in May. The New Zealand Herald reported that two small girls suffered terrible facial injuries in separate dog attacks. A 2-year-old girl had surgery at Whakatāne Hospital to repair her face after being savaged by a pit bull terrier. Earlier in the day, a 4-year-old girl was viciously attacked by a bull mastiff. She faced multiple operations to rebuild her face. The attacks capped a string of horror maulings in the past 10 days, including one that left a Bay of Plenty woman scalped. Other attacks saw a woman set upon by a pack of pig dogs and a rescue of a baby girl by her 5-year-old sister when a pit bull invaded their home.
We have a problem in this country with dog attacks on innocent citizens in our streets. We have a problem, but we have a Minister of Local Government who does not seem to know what the appropriate response is from a Government to this kind of problem. The Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, said recently: “I am not sure that people with an irrational fear, however real, of dogs have a right to require the physical restraint of all dogs in public places.” Every time a citizen gets attacked by a lethal or menacing dog around New Zealand and every time some 5-year-old has his or her face ripped off by a pit bull terrier, Rodney Hide announces that he will do a review of the dog control laws. That is all he knows how to do. He has been announcing the same review for the last 2½ years. Every time there is a headline about a dog attack, that Minister offers a review. But the trouble is that he sends very mixed signals about what he intends to do. In October last year he addressed the Companion Animal Conference, and he said on this very issue of dog attacks on citizens: “Perhaps there are ways to encourage individuals to resolve their problems without the need for regulation—for example: by educating owners about dog behaviour, and public education about safety around dogs.” Well, I ask this House whether those kinds of signals being sent by the Minister Rodney Hide are any consolation to the parents of that toddler in Whakatāne who was severely injured by an attack on an innocent child by an out-of-control dog.
We on this side of the House tried in 2008 to bring in dog control legislation that would have enacted a stricter regime on the regulation of lethal and menacing dogs. We proposed that lethal breeds already in this country would be dealt with, not just dogs that have yet to be imported. Members of that side of the House—Rodney Hide and National members—voted against it because they said it was the nanny State interfering in the lives of New Zealanders. They rejected a practical measure to control vicious, lethal, and menacing breeds of dogs, which are a menace on the streets of New Zealand. They rejected it as a nanny State measure.
Now that they are in Government, I call on the members on that side of the House to rethink their position on this issue and consider whether we should have a cross-party consensus in this House about tougher regulations of lethal and menacing breeds. I think it is time that we considered that, and I call on members of the House to respond in this debate.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) Link to this
I recall the subject of Government motion No. 3, Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010, coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 9 November 2010. The papers were accompanied by photographs and illustrations. I have one right here, courtesy of my colleague Jami-Lee Ross. These dogs are voracious carnivores. They are equipped with huge jaws, formidable teeth, an aggressive temperament, and heavily muscled bodies—physical features all of which could be put to a very, very bad use. None of the features of this particular breed held any virtue, in the mind of the select committee. The order added the breed Perro de Presa Canario to schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996.
Certainly—Perro de Presa Canario. This order forbids the importation of this breed to New Zealand. Although I fully support the comments of the honourable member Phil Twyford, I say that these dogs have not actually committed any of those aggressive things for a very good reason: none of the breed is here and never ever will be, as long as we adopt this order. The important thing is that we do not need these dogs. We have never had a need for this type of animal in New Zealand, we do not have a need for this type of animal in New Zealand, and we never will have a need for this type of animal in New Zealand. This motion should be approved and supported. Thank you.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
The Opposition supports the Government Notice of Motion No. 3, on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010, but I want to comment just on the procedure by which the House is dealing with this issue. The way in which we are dealing with this order is by way of what has become known as the affirmative resolution procedure. Instead of the matter going to the Regulations Review Committee, which is what most other delegated legislation does—and Mr Assistant Speaker Roy knows this because I served in a very junior capacity while he was on that committee in the last term as a senior member—this matter is somehow seen as so important that it has to come to the House and we have to spend an hour on it giving set-piece speeches, which is a total waste of time. It is an absolute waste of time and an absolute waste of taxpayers’ dollars. It is disgraceful.
Constitutionally and legally, we should refer all these matters in the ordinary course of events to the scrutiny committee that Parliament sets up every term, which meets every Thursday morning in a sitting week and deals with all these regulations. Instead, these matters go to a subject select committee where they occupy time on the agenda, then, eventually—because if I recall rightly this was dealt with back in November 2010 by the Local Government and Environment Committee—they make it back to the House and onto the Order Paper for a Wednesday night. We have, as I said, one of these stupid set-piece debates where the Opposition tries to fill up all the time it can take, the Government tries to get through it as quickly as it can, and nobody is the wiser once the debate is over.
I am really making in my speech a plea for us to recognise that we do have a decent procedure available to the Parliament for the scrutiny of legislation. Virtually everything else goes there. There is nothing special about dogs, except the fact that back in 1996 there was a moral panic about breeds of attack dogs, so Parliament decided it had to do something that looked really sexy to the public. It had all these orders approved by the full House, rather than through the ordinary scrutiny procedure. That is ridiculous. It was the usual knee-jerk reaction to a matter of public interest. Instead of honouring the usual legal and constitutional procedures, the Government did something really special and decided that a future Parliament would have to waste a heap of time on debating this matter. That is ridiculous and it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. If members opposite were really concerned about this matter, then their party would not have enacted this legislation in the form that it was enacted and we would not be wasting our time as we are now.
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this
Unlike the previous speaker, Charles Chauvel, I am very proud to support the order banning the perro de presa Canario dog breed. There are a few breeds that this country never wants to see entering our shores, and this is one of them.
We heard descriptions of the breed from the honourable Associate Minister of Local Government, who introduced this order today. The perro de presa Canario is a breed that was bred in the 1800s for fighting. That was its sole purpose for being in existence. We have heard the fact that dogs of this breed have been responsible for two deaths in the United States, one of which was of the dog’s owner, which I find absolutely despicable. It is important to take the steps we have available to us with this notice of motion, so I am pleased to do that.
I will also address the comments that Mr Twyford made. I say that, clearly, a wider review will be undertaken, as committed to by the Minister of Local Government. This side of the House sees that this sort of thing should take a lower priority than earthquake recovery in Canterbury and Christchurch. The Minister of Local Government has other priorities, which this side of the House is quite happy about. The other important thing is that there is recognition that there are significant dog attacks, but rather than one-off knee-jerk legislative changes we need that wider review.
Someone in my own employment was subjected to an attack by a bull mastiff, of which the perro de presa Canario is a fellow breed, as she went for a run down a suburban road. That is the sort of thing we need to get on top of, but I do not think it is as simple as some of the legislative changes we have seen in the past in terms of microchipping. I am not convinced that that has saved any child or adult from a dog attack. That is why I applaud the Minister for his wider review and I applaud the action being taken today to support this order. Thank you.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am happy to speak in support of this motion to ban the perro de presa Canario dog breed, having had the opportunity to sit through the Local Government and Environment Committee’s consideration of this matter under the chairmanship of Mr Auchinvole, whom I can see over there. Having seen some of the evidence of this particular breed of dog I can say that we fully support the decision to ban it.
I come to this debate as an enthusiastic supporter of the rights of dog owners, because I myself have been a dog owner in the past. I think it is important that we do not place unnecessary restrictions on dog owners.
I have never had a vicious dog, no. I think we need to get the balance right, and I think that a large amount of this falls into the category of the dog owners behaving responsibly. We cannot blame the animals for a certain amount of their behaviour. That is natural; it is what they are. They are animals, at the end of the day. How they are treated by their owners will, in large part, have a significant impact on the way the dogs end up behaving.
Having said that, there are some breeds of dog that are significantly more susceptible to random acts of violence—or even not so random acts of violence, just consistent acts of violence. The perro de presa Canario breed of dog is one of them. I do not think we need any more dogs of that nature in New Zealand. In fact, we have too many dogs of that nature in New Zealand already.
I support there being a wider review of what types of dog we have in New Zealand and of the potential to breed out some of the dog breeds that we currently have in New Zealand, because they are simply dangerous dogs. If we can get rid of them, I think we should. Having said that, there will always be exceptions.
I remember when I was growing up that for a while Rottweillers were regarded as being one of the most dangerous types of dog that someone could get. I happen to know a number of families who have Rottweillers that are the most placid, friendly-natured creatures one could imagine. I grew up in a household with boxer dogs. Boxer dogs can be temperamental as well, but they are good family dogs if they are treated properly. If they are properly trained and have the appropriate obedience training when they are puppies, boxer dogs can be brilliant family pets, but they can also be very unpredictable. So it is the responsibility of their owners to make sure that the dogs are properly supervised, that they are kept fenced, and that when they are out walking they are keeping an eye on what the dogs are getting up to and keeping them on a lead when other dogs and kids and so on are around. That is what a responsible dog owner does, and there is nothing wrong, therefore, with that breed of dog continuing.
The perro de presa Canario breed of dog, which this motion bans from New Zealand, does not fall into that category. The evidence is overwhelming that it is not a dog that can be tamed and domesticated. It is a violent-natured breed of dog, and I think it is right that we ban it. We have a problem in New Zealand with a number of savage dogs, and I think it is really important that we make some progress on dealing with that issue. Having said that, again I come back to this issue of balance.
I am not currently a dog owner. The lifestyle of a member of Parliament does not really lend itself to being a responsible owner, and I would be a dog owner only if I could be so responsibly. I cannot be one given the amount of time I spend here.
I tell Mr Twyford that that is an indictment on the lifestyle of list MPs. He is suggesting that a list MP could have a dog but an electorate MP could not. We need to take a lot more action on dealing with the very real risk that violent dogs pose in our community at the moment. There need to be much more severe penalties for dog owners, because, once again, I think it comes back to the issue of dog owners needing to accept some responsibility for the actions of their dogs. They should not be able to get away lightly. The recent spate of dog attacks that we have seen in the news media highlights the issue. We as a Parliament—and particularly members on that side as a Government—need to be more proactive about dealing with this issue.
When these things happen we should not just lament their occurrence and say we have to do something about it; we can do something about it before there are more violent dog attacks. That means dealing with menacing breeds and placing much tougher controls on them. It means looking very carefully at the breeds of dog we have in New Zealand at the moment that are menacing and violent, and making sure we take action so that they are bred out of the dog breeds we have in New Zealand.
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this
I support the motion on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. I will make just a couple of points. Our approach in the area of dog legislation is really to ensure that we do not make knee-jerk reactions. We support a very considered approach to these issues.
I will make a couple of points in response to some of the members opposite. Some of the research on this dog breed—as has already been mentioned by a number of speakers—has shown that it has been bred specifically for fighting. We know that the presa Canario dog breed has been banned for both importation and sale in Australia. In some of my research into this breed of dog, one of the things that were very clear was that this is a very big dog. It weighs a huge amount. I think the minimum weight of a male dog is 100 pounds, which gives us some idea of the scale of this breed of dog. One of the colloquial terms for this breed of dog is the Canary catch dog, but my argument is that we know that this dog has been bred for fighting. It is banned for importation and sale in Australia. There is a history of some very violent attacks that have ended in death, so I am very pleased to support this motion.
I will make just a couple of other points about our general approach to dog legislation. A first principles review is happening. That is the best thing we can do, because it can be a very emotional area. We have all seen on the news some of the situations that have happened. We are interested in ensuring that there is a review that enables the regime to be effective, efficient, and fair so that people do not respond in an ad hoc way. I support this motion because I think it will provide better safety in our community. We should not have these dogs in New Zealand. I support this motion on the order.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
Labour supports this motion, on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010, because more really needs to be done in this area. This Government has not done anything for the last 2 years. This do-nothing Minister of Local Government has been promising to do something for 2 years, but he has not delivered anything. He has now brought this motion which, as my colleague said earlier, is not a proper way to deal with these issues. There is a proper way, which is to go to the Regulations Review Committee and get this job done properly.
This is an issue that the Labour Government handled very well in 2008. There had been serious attacks at the time and the public was up in arms about the attacks that were happening. The Labour Government did something about it and it declared some of these menacing dogs to be dangerous dogs and we took action. The current situation is that a lot of attacks still happen throughout the country. There were 10,000 dog-related injuries throughout the country last year. In Auckland alone in the last 6 months there were 320 such attacks.
Occasionally I get the opportunity to go to the local botanical garden in Manurewa and I can see that a lot of people are now slowly getting used to handling their dogs. There is an area where dogs have to be on a leash, and there is a dedicated area for dogs to be walked. I am glad that a lot of dog owners are becoming responsible owners, I must say that. In particular, when I go there with my wife she is very scared of those dogs because she was attacked some years ago in Palmerston North. She is very, very scared of dogs. We are very careful of any big dogs in this park, and she is always very scared of them.
This is the kind of issue about which a lot of people have—
H V Ross RobertsonDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
Thank you, Mr Robertson. It is an emotional issue for a lot of people, particularly for young children and women. When people who are not used to dogs are attacked a lot of emotional issues come out in the newspapers and in the media and then we are all concerned about it.
This is something that we should have dealt with in a good manner. We should not have waited for 2 years to do this thing. As Charles Chauvel said earlier, this is something that should have been done in a proper way. I am glad that at last the Government and Ministers are taking some action about this particular species of dog, the perro de presa Canario. I understand that there are not any of those dogs in New Zealand at the moment, and through this measure there will be a ban on such a species coming to New Zealand. Our neighbour Australia has already banned this species of dog. It is very well known that this dog is bred for fighting purposes. We can do without that species of dog in New Zealand.
With those words I support this motion. I hope that the Government and Mr Hide will take further action to have the proper review that he has been planning. He has been saying to us that he will do this. Thank you very much.
Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this
I am happy to take a short call on the Government motion on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. It may have escaped the notice of the previous speaker, Dr Choudhary, but we have been dealing with some rather serious matters in the House over the past 2 years. But I am pleased that we have got around to this measure. It is a balanced and measured response to a problem that is of concern to all New Zealanders, and that is the presence of dangerous dogs in our country. As was commented in L’Esprit des Bêtes of 1847, “The more one gets to know men, the more one values dogs.” Some people think a dog is a man’s best friend but we have to realise that that is not the case with all dogs. The dog in question was bred for fighting, as we have heard, and also to deal with very large and recalcitrant livestock. It is known to have a strong and dominant character. It needs strong control. There are none in New Zealand at the moment. We believe that that is a very good situation and we aim to maintain it. Therefore, we aim to add this dog to schedule 4 of the Act. I also note that the department is to undertake a first-principles review of the Dog Control Act in a measured and balanced way. I commend this motion.