Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)

I move, That the House take note of the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2). The report back of the bill represents, in my view, significant progress towards improving the emphasis on community safety and dog control. The impetus for this bill came about after a series of particularly vicious dog attacks that occurred last summer. In one of those incidents a 7-year-old child, Carolina Anderson, was almost killed when attacked by an uncontrolled dog in an Auckland suburban park. The pain and suffering Carolina endured prompted community outrage, and rightly so.

Following a review of dog control laws and a detailed survey of local authorities, it became apparent that significant improvements could be made to legislation to improve public safety. Consequently, the Government’s intention in progressing this bill is to strengthen the existing Dog Control Act rather than to completely revamp it. What this bill does very well is to strike a better balance between the desires of dog owners to be able to enjoy their pets, and the rights of other members of our community, particularly children, to go about their lives without fear of attack or intimidation by uncontrolled dogs.

There is nothing I would like more than to be able to tell the House that this bill will halt dog attacks once and for all. Unfortunately, that is not something I can do. As long as we have dogs in our community, and as long as we have irresponsible owners, some attacks will occur. It is simply inevitable. There are, however, a number of practical steps we can take to limit the number and severity of attacks. Those steps are taken in this bill. Local government is given a full complement of tools to control the impact of dogs in our communities.

One of the most significant changes the committee made relates to the issue of fencing. In the original proposal, dog owners were to have been required to securely contain their dogs on their own properties and to provide unimpeded access for visitors to at least one external door of a dwelling. Having carefully listened to the view of submitters, the committee has decided to require owners to confine their dogs on their property when not under their direct control. But the committee has stopped short of specifying how dog owners should do this.

I think this amendment is sensible and practical, and I will support it. The change achieves the primary objective of the original proposal—that is, that dogs must be confined and not roaming the streets. The committee also proposes that the existing ability of territorial authorities, to classify some dog owners as probationary, ought to be retained. The committee proposes that this classification remain in the Act but as an either/or option for councils to use in conjunction with disqualification as a tool when dealing with problem owners. The committee also proposes that councils should have a specific power to require such owners to attend courses in dog ownership or obedience. Again, I think that those are sensible amendments, and I will support them.

The committee has also adopted a somewhat different approach to the Government’s proposal on the issue of microchipping all dogs. The committee supports microchipping, but recommends it be limited to just three categories of dogs: dangerous dogs, menacing dogs, and those dogs that are to be returned to their owners after being impounded. The committee also recommends that individual councils be empowered to determine for their own districts whether microchipping is to be compulsory.

My view, and the Government’s view—which, of course, are the same—is that the introduction of a system of microchip identification of dogs should remain unchanged. We take the view that microchipping can provide for a truly effective and affordable means of dog identification only if it is applied to all dogs. Most important, a system of microchip identification can work effectively only if it is linked to a national information database, and that database can work effectively only if it is linked to the introduction of universal microchipping.

I believe there are a number of flaws in what the select committee has proposed on this issue. The first is that the committee’s proposals will require each council to purchase equipment to support microchipping for the use of only a handful of dogs in each district. The second is that the ongoing cost of the database that should accompany microchipping will have to be recouped from just a small number of owners, making it almost certainly very expensive for those owners. It is estimated that the set-up costs for a national database on dogs would be in the order of $1 million. The Government has indicated that it is prepared to meet the set-up costs, because there are quite clearly national benefits from such a database. In addition to the set-up costs of the database, there would be annual running costs that would amount to about 53c per dog, if all dogs in New Zealand were registered. That figure would be vastly larger if it applied to just a few hundred owners, and therefore the issue of compliance costs is another compelling reason to support a national database.

For that reason, I will be moving an amendment to the bill at the appropriate time to provide for the universal microchipping of dogs. I would like members from other parties in the House who are currently not supporting that position to think again on this issue. I note that the SPCA, the Veterinary Association, and the New Zealand Kennel Club all support microchipping.

Aside from the issues I have just outlined, the bill remains largely as introduced. Under the provisions of the bill, territorial authorities will be required to review their dog control policies and bylaws under revised public safety criteria to ensure there is far less likelihood that children will be forced to encounter unleashed dogs in public places, such as parks and playgrounds.

I would like to thank the select committee for the amount of time it gave in hearing the proposals. The bill is about keeping the public safer from dangerous dogs. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the many submitters who participated so willingly in the select committee process and whose views on this matter were often very sincerely held.

This Local Government Reform Bill (No 2) will shortly become the Dog Control Amendment Act. National does indeed support this legislation, and we were very glad to be able to work constructively in the Local Government and Environment Committee with the other parties on this very, very important issue. However, we do note that this bill has been languishing since 1999, and that it took a crisis before this Labour Government was prepared to do anything about the very serious problem it addresses. The statistics show that in the order of 300 serious dog attacks resulting in hospitalisation occur in New Zealand per year, and there are many thousands of other dog attacks.

The point is that a large proportion of them are undoubtedly preventable. The task of the select committee was to respond to the Government’s crisis response to the mounting concerns across New Zealand regarding dog attacks. There were indeed a cluster of dog attacks in south Auckland at the beginning of this year. They were on children, and they were very serious; but there was a further attack in Ponsonby that horrified many people. It focused the attention of the news media, and finally the Government.

I believe that it is important to revisit the submission that was provided by the family of Carolina Anderson. It described the fact that the owners of the offending dog failed to control the animal, failed to come to Carolina’s assistance, failed to call the dog off, gave a false name and number to family friends, and failed to come forward to the police or the family in the days after the attack. When the police arrested the owners on a Wednesday of that month, they were found seemingly attempting to change their appearance.

The submission goes on to say that because of their actions Carolina will be scarred for life, yet under the 1996 Dog Control Act they face a maximum fine of $5,000 and a mere 3 months in jail on the charge of possessing a dangerous dog. Even at that early stage after the event, the family knew that the cost to them—the victim and parents—would be substantially greater. Only a few days ago I spoke to Carolina’s father, and he said she had just undergone yet another operation, and this is very much an ongoing event in her life.

The submission goes on to say: “In light of the spate of dog attacks in New Zealand in recent months and the hideous impact this is having on many sectors of the community, but especially children, our family, our friends, and our many supporters in the community urge the Government to make an urgent revision of the Dog Control Act.” As we know, this bill was brought before the House some months ago, and the select committee has deliberated constructively.

It is incredible to read in this week’s Sunday Star-Times that the owners of the dog that attacked Carolina now have another dog of a similar breed, if not exactly the same, in their care. It just seems incredible, the insensitivity that they have displayed in taking on this friend’s dog. It is absolutely irresponsible that again they are, apparently, parading around Ponsonby with a dog that is potentially a very dangerous animal.

It appears—on reading the Dog Control Act—that the District Court judge did not actually incur either a probationary notice on this pair or suggest that there be disqualification. I understand that, as it reads, it is only the territorial local authority that may do so. The reality is that while the new bill means that anyone who is on probation or is disqualified is no longer able to own or possess a dog, there may be an anomaly in that if a District Court judge believes or recommends that that should happen, the territorial local authority will not know about it, or the owners might move from one territorial local authority to another. An important anomaly in the system that was not picked up by the select committee clearly has allowed this pair—Thomas Owen and Brian Hill—to flagrantly go about with yet another menacing dog under their care, on the pretence that they do not own it, but they are merely looking after a friend’s dog. We have a problem here, and, hopefully, it will be addressed by an amendment.

I point out that there was overwhelming support in the submissions that this amendment bill focus on owner responsibility, that irresponsible owners should be penalised, and that councils be required to demonstrate better enforcement. We learnt that there was considerable variation in enforcement around the country, with some councils keeping statistics and doing a very good job, and other councils not achieving the sorts of results or standards that we would expect in New Zealand. Undoubtedly, the committee has to balance the consideration of not being too restrictive to dogs exercising and socialising; yet, on the other hand, not having universal prescriptive rules for urban and rural conditions.

Undoubtedly, the most contentious issue was that proposed in the Government’s amendment—the requirement to provide a dog-free access from the street to a door of any house where there is a dog. That was daft. That was a clear illustration of the daftness of the Minister, the Hon Chris Carter. Fortunately, the committee worked hard to convince him, finally, that that was a ridiculous anomaly put up by the Government, and it has been thrown out in this bill—quite rightly so.

There is great sense in ensuring that responsible dog owners are given incentives, and they, undoubtedly, are the majority of owners in New Zealand. A clear indication is that discounts in terms of registration, in terms of turning up for educative courses, etc., and in terms of complying appropriately with best-practice guidelines, should be given to responsible dog owners.

I end by saying that it also is a huge concern that we do not have consistent nation-wide application of the Act in New Zealand. There is a big need to get best-practice guidelines right across New Zealand that will be applied by the territorial local authorities. I note in the commentary, as an additional means of addressing this issue, that the committee recommended a new section 10AB be inserted into the Dog Control Act to require a territorial local authority to report annually on the administration of its dog control policies and practices. A template for such annual reporting could be included in the best-practice guideline being developed by the department and Local Government New Zealand. This is hugely important, in my view. It will allow benchmarking as a stimulus for territorial local authorities to provide optimal rules, and to enforce them.

I was lucky enough to chair the Local Government and Environment Committee when it considered the amendments to the Dog Control Act, and I thank members from all sides on that committee who cooperated to produce what is, I think, quite a good piece of proposed legislation.

The committee was conscious—as is the Government—of the need to balance the rights of dog owners against the rights of the general public to be properly protected, to the extent that it is possible, from any nuisance and risk posed by dogs, particularly in public places. The legislation goes some way to improving that balance. As the previous speaker said, one of the problems with universal rules imposed at central government level is that the interests of densely populated areas, where there is high density housing and high numbers of people, are a bit different to the interests of councils in rural areas where populations are pretty thinly spread and the problems posed by dogs are not the same. So imposing universal solutions at a central government level can lead either to over-regulation for territories that are rural in nature or to under-regulation for areas where we do not want concentrations of large dogs wandering freely in the streets in city areas. What we have done with this legislation is find the appropriate balance.

One of the proposals that was rightly put up for consideration was whether there should be a right of free access to the door from the street on all properties on which there is a dog. This arose from concerns in some south Auckland neighbourhoods in particular, where there have been reports of posties not being able to deliver letters and, also, concerns on the part of meter readers. We did give consideration as to whether that was appropriate. Balanced against that was the right of property owners to let dogs roam around their sections, to not have the cost of fencing to the front door, and to be able to feel more secure about their properties because their dogs are wandering around the entire property. In the end, the committee thought that, while it is every person’s right to have a dog wandering around his or her property, it is not every person’s right to have a dangerous dog wandering around that property. To the extent that people have a right in law—unless it is taken away by the landowner, everyone has a right to approach the front door of a house that one is visiting—we thought that that right carried with it the right for people to be able to expect that any dogs on the property would not be dangerous. In cases of dangerous dogs on properties, the local authority should be able to require that there be a fenced way to the door. In the end, we have not imposed an obligation, or suggested that one be imposed, to provide a dog-free, fenced access to the front door for all properties. However, that requirement will remain in the case of a dangerous dog.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The next issue I wish to talk about is the proposal to microchip dogs. Microchip technology has become a lot cheaper over the years and these days it is commonly used by farmers, particularly in the dairy industry. As it has become more cost-effective it has become a technology that is open to being used on dogs. It would assist in the tracking of dogs, particularly when they go from one district to another or are let out without their collars. If a dog attacks stock and does not have its collar on, it is hard for farmers to pin responsibility on the errant owner, because they cannot prove ownership of the dog.

There was a divided view in the committee as to whether microchipping dogs should be compulsory for all councils, which would be progressively applied to all new registrations—it was not proposed that it be applied to dogs that had previously been registered. The Labour side favoured compulsory microchipping but there was some diffidence on the other side, so there was a split view on that in the committee. The Labour Party still favours compulsory microchipping. In that scenario, the Government would bear the cost of establishing a national database on which all registration details, including individual microchip identifiers, would be entered. If that were achieved, then over the next 10 to 15 years all dogs would progressively be fitted with a microchip as new dogs were born and registered.

Lastly, I wish to make reference to fines. Some fines for serious offences and deliberate wrongdoing have been increased, as have maximum penalties, but we took the step that was recommended by some councils of reducing some infringement fee fines so that they were not too onerous and were more proportionate to the offence that occurred. Therefore, they are more likely to be imposed by councils, rather than being seen as overkill by councils. We also made it clear that those infringement fees, when collected, would stay in the hands of the council that had done the enforcement work, rather than passing into the Government’s coffers. Those are the points I wanted to make, and I thank again the committee members who assisted.

First, I wish to thank David Parker, who chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee, and fellow members for what in the end was a carefully considered and much more thoughtful response to an issue that earlier in the year was of great concern.

I want to go back in time, because if I just spend a moment or two looking at the past, members will understand why at least one issue, that of breed-specific content, might not have been addressed in the minds of those who keep on writing to me—as recently as this afternoon—about what we have not done. This goes back to 1991, when Cabinet invited the then Minister of Local Government to conduct a review of the adequacy of existing dog legislation. The select committee reported back to the House after hearing about 400 submissions, in July 1993. Older members will recall that the Dog Control Act was enacted in 1996. The issue of breed-specific legislation was considered and rejected, and, instead, the training of dogs was considered the primary factor. Dog behaviour, rather than dog breed, became the determining issue of concern in that legislation.

Throughout the 1990s the American pit bull terrier was often the subject of concern in the wider community. There was the death of Koro Dinsdale in April 1997, which the media implied had been caused by pit bull terriers. There was a sudden rush of concern, throughout those years, about the state of this dangerous breed, why it was being allowed in, and so on. Therefore, it was no wonder that the then Minister of Local Government, the Hon Christine Fletcher, established a cross-party parliamentary working-party with the instruction that it consider what action should be taken under existing statutory powers to achieve the phased elimination from New Zealand of the American pit bull terrier, then venture into difficult waters and consider crossbreeds. That working-party become known as the Brian Neeson working-party. It reported back in May 1997. Finally, a bill of three parts came into the House just before the election in 1999, and that is the bill that our committee picked up.

I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to Brian Neeson, who is no longer with us. He was a good, loyal, honest, and hard-working member of the National Party, but for some strange reason he was rejected by the party and is no longer in the House. I would like to pay tribute to Brian, whom I have known for many years. He will be very pleased to see that, at long last, his earnest efforts have been rewarded by this bill, which comes to us in a more substantial form than his bill.

As the Minister of Local Government has already said, the committee heard a number of representations. I want to take the House through a few of them, because they not only give us a lead as to what we were looking at but also leave us with some difficulties, which I think the House will have to consider when the bill goes through the Committee stage next week.

The Auckland City Council said that it was aware of the difficult issues in achieving a balance between the rights of responsible dog owners to own and control dogs, and the right of members of the public to feel safe. That was expressed in our narrative to the bill. The council, like us all, deplored the increasing number of serious dog attacks. It acknowledged that the survey of local authorities—there was both an initial and a completed survey of local authorities—had indicated that a vastly disproportionate percentage of all attacks were by unregistered dogs. That was a cause of concern to us. The council said—and it is also our thoughts, as expressed in the final report now before the House—that it is extremely important that we do not impose unnecessary restrictions on the majority of dog owners, who are both law-abiding and responsible. That was one of the key concerns that we worked through in the committee. The Auckland City Council, as a large city council with parks, realised that one of the issues it had to look at, and one that it might not have dealt with adequately in the past, was the provision in its open spaces and parks of more stand-alone areas where dogs could be exercised.

The Manukau City Council came to the committee on the same day. I found the Manukau City Council submission interesting. First of all, it has roughly 14,000 registered dogs and about 7,000 unregistered dogs. The Manukau City Council covers an area that is known for having a large number of unregistered dogs. It wanted the committee—and I am not quite sure why it did not do it itself—to send a very clear message that dogs should be registered, that it is not equitable for some dog owners to choose not to register their dogs, and that it is certainly not equitable for the ratepayer to have to pay the total cost of enforcement in respect of dogs that are not registered. The council did not have a very clear position on microchipping. The Manukau City Council people thought it was of benefit, but they were not clear in their minds about the technology that would go with microchipping.

The other submission that I want to take the House through very quickly is one that I was particularly pleased to see and that was very precise—that is, the submission from the Auckland branch of the SPCA. It raised four factors, and I want to raise them here because they were the factors we looked at in our committee report. It talked about the consistency of law. I am sure the society meant consistency of law throughout all local authorities responsible for dog control. The survey that has already been alluded to showed quite clearly that there is not consistency of control. On the basis of reading it again this afternoon, I have to say that of the 79 or so territorial authorities, there might not be more than 23 to 25 that exercise reasonable dog control.

That is not being negative, because one of the issues of dog control is the issue that I started with—that is, the cost to ratepayers. The district councils with two or three rangers running a $100,000 operation feel that that is all that dog control is worth in terms of council funding. They are not likely to increase that funding unless there is some incentive to do so. But the councils—and I have talked to a number since the committee brought down its report—are not happy or unhappy; they just feel they could do better.

I have raised with them the issue of microchipping. That was one of the issues the committee looked at very carefully, and we walked away from it in some ways. The issue of microchipping is an important one. The select committee gave it due deliberation. The issue as I see it now—and our caucus has discussed it fairly completely—is that, in the committee’s mind, if we were to call for compulsory microchipping of dangerous dogs, and for a national database and register throughout the country, the cost to the councils of that would be so inequitable that it would not really run as a going concern. From that, our caucus advanced our thinking to the point where we think microchipping should be universal. We had certain issues about it. The first is the state of the technology. The transponder, by the way, needs to be slightly bigger; instead of being able to view it from the distance between myself and that glass, it really needs to be visible from a metre or so away. Secondly, in our thinking about it, I advanced to our caucus that there was no need for a collar, and that microchipping could be done alone. I have come to feel that perhaps a collar is needed, as well.

The third thing I want to say—and I know that veterinary surgeons, who have a vested interest, are strongly in support of this—is that if we do support microchipping, we would need to have qualified dog officers inserting the microchips. One vet told me there is nothing worse than the sight of a pure white 3-month-old dog whose microchip was not inserted very well; the owner fainting at the sight of the dog’s blood going down the back of its neck, which is where the chip is inserted.

The process is easily done. The transponder is an issue. The database would be sound. I think, in the end, the number of registered dogs would be greater. The cost could be borne, provided that the Government meets the substantial cost, as the Minister said today, of the database and the continuance of the database.

The introduction of this bill is very topical. As has been alluded to in this House, it is just a few months since the rather horrific attack on young Carolina Anderson that, clearly, was the catalyst for the introduction of this bill. I was one of those unfortunate enough to view a photograph of that little girl’s face that was not shown to the media. Like everybody else in that room that day, I was absolutely appalled at what I saw. If I may, I will take a moment just to reflect that too often we do not recognise the people who quite literally put faces and people back together again. I think it is important to recognise the fantastic job that the medical profession does when faced with appalling circumstances like that of young Carolina. I am delighted to see that there has been a huge improvement, and long may that continue as that beautiful young face and skin regenerate and the surgeons work their miracles, as I am sure they will.

Sometimes it is rather difficult to stand in the House and make a speech when one stands alone and bases one’s comments not on a lack of emotion, a lack of understanding of what has gone on in the past, but on certain principles that are quite important to me and, indeed, to our party. I am not sure at all—in fact, I do not believe, as, indeed, I am sure many in this House do not believe—that the passing of this law will suddenly be the panacea for dog attacks. That is just not going to happen. We have too many hugely irresponsible people in our society who constantly thumb their nose at authority, whether it be a dog ranger, a territorial authority, or, indeed, the Government. Those are the people on whom the focus of this bill should always be.

As a farmer I have some real interest in reading through this bill. I have owned many, many dogs, and some of them have been quite stroppy, one might say. Many would be referred to as dangerous by those who do not know how to handle such dogs on a farm. A big huntaway with a young child can be quite dangerous. So I bring some understanding to this issue. But there should be an emphasis, quite rightly, on the dangerous dog as distinct from the law-abiding citizen, as Jim Peters has just alluded to. Far and away the vast majority of dog owners are decent, law-abiding, sensible people who enjoy the opportunity of owning a dog. It is very much a part of the New Zealand way of life. How many of us have received a pup for a birthday or at Christmas time? Growing up with animals is part of who we are and what we are in this country. I would certainly not want to see that changed.

But I ask this question of the House. Would the Governor-General’s dog, which flew at a golden retriever in a very public way just recently, qualify as a dangerous dog? That dog attacked another dog in an inappropriate way. That retriever was doing a fantastic job for its mistress, and was attacked by that little whatever it was—it looked like a small pug or something. I do not consider that dog as dangerous, but some might construe it to be so.

A working dog, or any dog, that is suddenly woken by its master, or, indeed, by a child or anybody else, instantly reacts. I myself from time to time have had the jaw of a good dog clamped on my wrist or hand before it realised that it was the hand that fed it—literally. Even sensible, sound dogs, if not approached correctly, can react. I have had dogs caught in fences. When I have rushed over to stop them from breaking a leg, they have clamped their jaws on whatever part of me they can get hold of, because they think it is me who is hurting them and causing them very real pain. So we have situations where members of the public unwittingly, through wanting to help an animal in some distress, are bitten. A dog with unrecognised pain, whether it be in a leg, back, shoulder, or whatever, will react to that, as well.

We also get situations where dogs become very protective of their owners. They become very territorial. That is just an instinctive part of what a dog is. Some would regard a dog that attacked in a territorial situation as being dangerous. Well, no, that is not so. It is part of the natural process of that animal. The problem is the lack of understanding of the general public in not recognising that that situation will occur.

I note with some humour, on this rather serious subject, that dogs that actually lunge or chase cars can also be regarded as dangerous. Well, dogs often chase cars, but once they catch one they do not have a clue what to do with it. That is often the way. Members of the public swerve to get out of the way of an animal, whether it is a possum, a dog, or a cat, and thereby endanger their own lives or, indeed, those of other road users. Again, it is not so much the fault of the animal; it is, in fact, a lack of understanding by the general public of how to handle those situations.

I mentioned earlier that part of the New Zealand psyche was the keeping of pets. All of us enjoy these concepts. I recall that just recently a tiger used in a show mauled its owner after many years of a perfectly fine relationship. Animals will react uncharacteristically sometimes, in certain situations, and we do not know enough about that. The reaction of our community is to ban dangerous dogs, ban tigers being used in shows, and ban horses. I have a neighbour who was kicked in the face by a horse and has had titanium plates inserted. We cannot turn round and react to those appalling situations—as they are—by passing laws to stop them. In fact, that is not what happens.

I am concerned as much as anybody else in this House about gang members and dog breeders who deliberately breed fighting dogs to gain some status or mana. That is absolutely outrageous. One problem is that the existing law is not being utilised to ensure that those people are not allowed to perpetuate that practice. Cross-breeding in the animal kingdom cannot be stopped. As any good breeder of any animal will tell us, the straight breed is not the problem; it is the cross-breed. How do we stop that? How do we legislate for those concepts? Microchipping may well help in some circumstances, but the predators in our society—those who live on the other side from law-abiding citizens—will not worry two hoots about this legislation. They will not line up to register their pit bulls, Dobermanns, or whatever they might be, down at the local regional council office. We will penalise only the good, decent, law-abiding dog owners up and down the country who ensure that their dogs are well cared for and well looked after and have the right temperament. Regrettably, we have to accept that if animals are to be part of our lives, whether they be horses, dogs, or cats, there is an element of risk. That is part of the price we pay, and it was a rather terrible price in the case of little Carolina.

Gerry Eckhoff and the Minister of Local Government made the point that it takes good dog-owners to prevent attacks on children. The Green Party shared the concern of all New Zealanders when Carolina Anderson was savagely attacked last year. It is entirely understandable that Parliament should question the effectiveness of the law. There is always room for improvement. The attack on Carolina indicated some shortcomings in the law. It also indicated a law that was inadequately enforced. During the select committee hearings it became evident that some local authorities do a less than adequate job of dog control. None the less, there are shortcomings in the law, and the bill does seek to address those.

We heard from dog control officers of their frustration at not being able to pursue problem dogs on to private property. They will now be able to do that. The bill also requires local authorities to report on their enforcement measures. The best-practice guidelines will include reporting procedures. How will those measures help? I suspect that local authorities will increasingly come under scrutiny over problem dogs. Those reporting procedures will help that scrutiny to be done more effectively.

Submissions stressed the importance of the education of dogs, owners, and the general public. We would have preferred dog obedience classes to be mandatory for new dog-owners and their dogs. But there are good dog-owner provisions in this bill, with the possibility of cheaper registration fees for dogs whose owners have taken them through dog-training courses. That will provide some sort of incentive. The Minister also spoke of his intention to proceed with public education on appropriate behaviour around dogs. We look forward to that happening.

We have some concerns about breed-specific measures. There is little evidence around the world to show that it works. Although we have little difficulty with excluding dogs that have been bred for fighting, which are virtually non-existent here—like the tosa, the fila, and the dogo Argentino—we note that American pit bull terriers are notoriously difficult to identify and are not a specific breed. Such a ban is likely to catch a range of breeds that have no more history of aggressive behaviour than most dogs that are not on the list of dangerous breeds. The call to focus on the deed and not the breed makes some sense. We are concerned that if we identify some dogs as dangerous and require them to be muzzled, neutered, etc., some owners will simply train other dogs to behave aggressively. We are also concerned that some may think that if a dog is not muzzled, if it is not a fila, a tosa, a dogo, or an American pit bull, less care is required around it.

Although posties, meter readers, and visitors should be able to approach a house without fear of being eaten, we are pleased that the provision requiring a fence to the front door has been replaced by a simple requirement that the dog owner must make sure that his or her dog or dogs are under control, and must decide how that should be achieved. I notice that the chair mentioned that, for dangerous dogs, such a fence will still be required. I did not know that was the case. I thought the owner could chain the dog up in the backyard or confine it to part of the section.

In view of the fact that very few of the around half a million dogs here are problem dogs, we believe that microchipping just dangerous dogs, menacing dogs, and dogs that have been impounded is adequate. The bill also provides for local authorities to make microchipping mandatory for all dogs in their jurisdiction, if they believe that is the best method of control for them. I notice that New Zealand First is prepared to support compulsory microchipping, so it sounds like it will happen.

This legislation will cover one of my other concerns, and that is the belief that all hunting dogs should be required to be microchipped. Escaped hunting dogs are believed to be major offenders in attacks on farm animals and wildlife. Owners of such dogs need to be accountable for their dogs’ actions, and to be subjected to the provisions of the law that make them liable to be banned from owning dogs.

We believe that there needs to be a national register of dogs that is funded by central government. We do not believe that microchipping is a prerequisite for that national register.

Probably all of the over half a million dogs in New Zealand are capable of attacking and biting, but, overwhelmingly, most do not do that. A tiny minority of dogs are problem dogs, and most of them are roaming dogs, barking dogs, and dogs that foul footpaths. Most dogs are companion dogs. Far from threatening anybody, they make their owners feel safer, not because they are trained to protect their owners physically, but because they are likely to warn of possible danger. When one has company, even the company of a dog, one feels so much safer. Any attempt to protect us against the rare and, for the most part, entirely unpredictable dog attack must be tempered by recognition of the fact that most dogs are loyal companions. I venture to suggest that for every dog attack there are literally thousands of occasions when the elderly, the frail, and the vulnerable feel safer out and about, or at home, because of their dogs. Because of their dogs, they do things they would not otherwise do.

This bill spells out again the responsibility of dog owners to keep strangers safe by ensuring that visitors to their homes are not threatened. Where appropriate, physical constraints may be used, but the bill also reinforces the importance of education of the dogs, of their owners, and of children and adults about appropriate behaviour around dogs. The bill recognises that most attacks occur by a dog known to the person being attacked, and recognises the requirement to strike a balance between the need to provide protection against dangerous and menacing dogs, and the needs of the overwhelming majority of dog owners and their pets, who pose little risk. Although there are penalties, and some of those have been strengthened, there are also carrots for those dog owners who are prepared to earn the status of being a responsible dog-owner.

We see the good sense in ensuring that areas frequented by children are free of uncontrolled dogs. We are pleased to note too, however, that the local authorities have a responsibility to make sure that there are areas where people can exercise their dogs. We hope most local authorities will be smart enough to realise that those areas need to be available around most neighbourhoods. Not everybody is able to go long distances to visit an appropriate dog-exercising area. It is important that the need of dog owners to exercise their dogs is provided for.

The Greens will be supporting this bill. It is good legislation. The point has been made by others that it alone will not stop dogs from attacking, but I hope it will persuade more dog owners to be more responsible, and thus will make dog attacks in the future a little less likely.

I rise in support of the bill, on behalf of United Future. Since its introduction in July 1999, the bill has undergone a somewhat elongated process. More recently, following a recent spate of highly publicised dog attacks, in particular the horrific attack on young Carolina Anderson, it seems that the Government has been moved to respond, by addressing the dog control laws and putting some new teeth into the regulations. It was particularly pleasing to receive a call today—and I imagine many members of the Local Government and Environment Committee may have received a call—from John Anderson, the father of Carolina, who indicated his pleasure with regard to the way that the bill has come out from the select committee. It is always rewarding to be able to make a member of the New Zealand public happy who has gone through such a horrific experience.

I want to express my appreciation to the officials who helped us through the process, and for the excellent chairmanship of the committee by David Parker, who took us through the process very efficiently, without any roadblocks or delays. It has been good to work on this bill because we have, I believe, come up with very good legislation and it has been great to see the cooperation in the committee stage. The committee has done a comprehensive job of striking an appropriate balance between public safety and dog owners’ responsibilities. That has included removing some of the more draconian ideas that were contained in the initial Government proposals—for example, the fencing requirement that stated there had to be unimpeded access to the front door of a house. That has been abolished, in favour of requiring dogs to be made secure on a property. Farmers’ working dogs will be exempt from that requirement.

The committee also addressed the issue of breed bans. We heard a great deal on that issue from the submitters. While banning the importation of certain breeds such as the Japanese tosa, the Brazilian fila, and the dogo Argentino is fairly straightforward, many submitters considered identifying the American pit bull terrier too problematic in respect of the number of crossbreeds and associated breeds in the country. Hence the amendment by the committee to define the pit bull as a type of dog, rather than as a specific breed. The intended effect of that is to make enforcement of the new measures concerning pit bulls less prone to the technicalities with regard to crossbreeds. I believe that we have come up with a reasonable working solution.

While the committee was still deliberating on this bill I was in Europe and managed to meet with the UK dog legislation people, to check out that legislation. We heard a great deal during the select committee submission process about how the UK legislation was not working. I point out to the House that the UK legislation is very, very different from what we are introducing here. For a start, there is no dog registration at all in the UK, and it completely stunned me to learn that. The UK has a ban on the ownership of pit bulls, which enables the police there simply to apprehend any pit bull dog or any dog they consider to be a pit bull, to remove it, and to fine the person who may be the owner of it. We are not taking that measure here; we are not banning the pit bull. We are simply classifying it as a menacing type of dog, and giving some power to dog control officers to require the owners of such dogs to muzzle them when they are in public. I do not feel that is too onerous a requirement for those who do love their dogs. We have a German shepherd, and would be very disappointed if we had to get rid of it. We understand the sentiment behind many dog owners opposing the breed-specific legislation, but I believe we have found a reasonable balance. I received a letter today from the New Zealand Veterinary Association. I believe there is still a lot of misunderstanding about what we achieved in the select committee, because the association makes the comment that dogs should be classified as dangerous by their actions, rather than on the basis of their breed. Well, of course we are not classifying certain breeds as dangerous; we are classifying them as menacing. The requirements are reasonably light, I believe.

We also discussed in the select committee an exemption for those people who take their dogs to dog shows in the weekends, whether it be to obedience trials or to dog shows. That is a very common and favourite pastime across New Zealand. If an owner has a dog that has been classified as menacing, he or she can have an exemption so as not to have to muzzle it while it is performing or competing in the show.

As far as United Future is concerned, the issue has always been about better enforcement of the existing laws and providing dog control officers with the tools and resources they need to do that. To that end, we are pleased that the bill contains a number of positive amendments to the principal Act. I am particularly indebted to the Tauranga District Council’s dog control officer, John Payne, who has an excellent knowledge of the existing Act and was able to give me some very, very helpful guidance as we went through the process of making amendments to the legislation. He has come up with a number of suggestions, which I am happy to say have been adopted by the committee and by the officials, to improve the existing legislation. Dog control officers have been given increased powers and rights to enter private property in order to apprehend dangerous dogs and impound them. Councils will be audited to ensure that they are applying the law. That is very, very important. We have a wide range of compliance across the country, and it is important that councils do their part in applying the existing laws and these new laws that will be given to them in the near future.

Infringement fees have been increased to some extent—in particular, the fee regarding non-registration, which I want to mention briefly. I believe we will have a discussion in the Committee this week. It is important we do not increase that infringement fee too much, or else councils will not enforce it. The problem today is that many councils are not enforcing that fee. They are basically letting people not register their dogs, and when they are caught they can then register them. That contributes to the problem, rather than providing a solution.

The probationary category of dog ownership will be retained, and that is important. For most dog control officers, dog control enforcement is not necessarily about heartlessly locking up people’s dogs if they have been found to be out of control, and fining the owners. By and large their approach has been to try to work with dog owners, and to educate them so that they can better control their dogs. Many dog control officers report that the probationary dog ownership status is an essential part of the process of producing good dog owners, as it can require dog owners to undertake dog education and learn from those who are experienced with dogs. Dog control officers report that there are problems with the surcharge provisions within that probationary category. I hope we may address them in the Committee stage, because those problems have often led to dog control officers not using that category, which otherwise would be very useful.

Of course, there will always be dangerous dogs out there that need to be taken off the streets, and their owners penalised for their disregard for public safety. The bill deals with those sorts of offenders, as well. A jail term of up to 3 years, or a fine of $20,000, is a significant new deterrent to would-be irresponsible owners. However, all the new penalties and infringement fees operate after the fact of an attack. They do not stop children receiving injuries, and do not stop dangerous dogs attacking people. Preventing attacks will not be successful unless councils get tough on stray dogs and ensure that owners keep their dogs under control in the first place.

One aspect of that is the establishment of a national database for dogs. It is United Future’s belief that essential to dog control enforcement is the ability of dog control officers to distinguish quickly and accurately between registered dogs with owners, and strays. With effective identification through reference to a nationwide database, strays can be impounded and the owners of registered dogs can be tracked down and dealt with appropriately. United Future is not presently convinced that the mandatory microchipping of all dogs is necessary for such a database to be effective. It is, after all, just a method of identification. Although in some cases it will provide a better method than those currently used, we are still not fully convinced that the merits of requiring all dogs to be microchipped are there.

However, it is important that we see the establishment of the national database, for that is really the key issue. We want to see the Government committed to establishing a standardised nationwide database so that when called upon, accurate information about any dog can be retrieved quickly. Our present system of ad hoc local databases is clearly failing us. Presently, many local councils do not bother to adequately maintain or update them. They all have different kinds of information on them. I believe that one idea, which was not discussed within the committee, was that it was not necessary to have mandatory microchipping in order to have that database. We could have a database based upon all the information already contained within councils, relating to owners who register their dogs. So a combination of both would be a useful tool for dog control officers to use, and we hope to see that advanced through the Committee stage, also.

There are many other amendments that, again, have been addressed through the help of the submitters. One, in particular, is concerned with the leashing of all dogs. There was a great deal of concern from submitters that we would mandatorily require all dogs to be leashed at all times in the public arena. We found a sensible compromise there, by requiring owners to at least have a leash in hand so that, if necessary, they may control their dogs. I believe that results in a much better bill, and I commend it to the House.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.