Dog Control Amendment Bill

I note that there are some suggestions in this clause that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004, and that clauses 8, 15, and 35 come into force on 1 July 2006. It seems to me that if clause 8 were allowed to come into force on 1 July 2006, it would give effect to universal microchipping throughout New Zealand coming into effect on that date. I believe that that is contrary to the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee, certainly in terms of the compliance costs, and in terms of the priorities that this legislation is trying to achieve, and they are to diminish the number of preventable dog attacks. In my view, that provision is inappropriate.

However, the select committee did consider the other two options. Clause 15 deals with microchipping dangerous and menacing dogs, and the select committee was in agreement with that. Clause 35 refers to dogs that have been impounded—that they, also, be microchipped—and there was no great objection to that. But the question of universal microchipping needs further debate in this Chamber. Given that the select committee heard all the submissions, and agreed that it was inappropriate to have universal microchipping as suggested by clause 8, which would bring it into being in New Zealand on 1 July 2006, it is highly relevant to this commencement date to talk about universal microchipping, and the fact that it certainly is not a priority in terms of reducing unnecessary dog attacks.

There are many things that should be done, prior to the enormous expense incurred by having clause 8 coming into force. It is for that reason that I think it is important the Committee takes note of the amendment that I have put forward regarding clause 1A, and that is to omit from subclause (1A) the expression “8”. Undoubtedly, the select committee noted that the most important measures in terms of preventing unnecessary dog attacks centred on owner responsibility, much better nationwide enforcement, and a clampdown on irresponsible owners. It is the irresponsible owners whose dogs often do not have either collars or discs, and they are also very unlikely to have microchips. Besides, we know that all dogs will be required to have collars and discs, even if they do have microchips. Not only is this an extra cost and compliance, but it will be over and above the requirement for all dogs to wear collars and discs, which is the status right now.

But we have learnt that it is the irresponsible dog owners, the ones who have unregistered dogs, and whose dogs do not have collars and discs, who are very unlikely to conform with the requirements for microchipping. I believe that the Minister is quite out of place when he provides in clause 1A for clause 8 to come into effect on 1 July 2006.

The commencement date of any bill is important, but in this case it is even more important, if one accepts universal microchipping. As has already been stated, the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee did not support universal microchipping, but they did support the microchipping of those dogs classified as dangerous and menacing, and impounded dogs that are returned to their owners. That provision takes effect on the commencement date of this bill. Therefore, the commencement date becomes important. It allows the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs and local councils to set in place the procedures, by-laws, and all the other things that will go with this bill being not just dog control legislation but also, in time, allowing for new or additional types of registration. Therefore, the commencement time is important. We concur with the Minister that the maximum amount of time is needed both now and through to July 2006.

A common concern of those who did not wish to see their dogs microchipped, was the cost involved. I note that clause 15(3)(b) provides that a dog owner must provide to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying that the dog will not be in a fit condition to be microchipped before the specified date. It seems to me it is not terribly difficult for a local authority to judge whether a dog has been microchipped, because it is done simply by waving a wand over it. The idea that the device has to be inserted by a veterinary surgeon—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We are debating clause 1A, “Commencement”.

I was simply raising the issue as a warning to the Minister that I would like some clarification later on. I concur with Mr Peters that the Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned that the provisions relating to dangerous dogs will come into force at the point of enactment of these provisions—in 2006. It seems to me that 2006 is a long way off for dogs that have been judged to be dangerous or menacing.

I have been interested to hear the other members who have risen to speak on clause 1A, which is the commencement clause of the Dog Control Amendment Bill. Those members seem to have focused exclusively on microchips. I have not been part of the earlier discussions by the House on this bill, but I believe there are far more telling reasons why the Minister should not have this bill commence on 1 December. They are that this bill, in fact, changes a whole range of things that go way beyond microchips. The microchip proposal, as I understand it, will not really take effect until 2006—safely after the next election and safely in the middle of an election cycle, so that the upset felt by the thousands of families who will be affected by this legislation will be at sufficient distance for the Labour Party to feel that voters will have forgotten about it by the following election.

The commencement dates in this bill are important for other reasons. This bill goes through and changes a number of features that do not have anything to do with dog control, and have everything to do with dog destruction. This bill brings in a new offence of rushing, and the instruction to get the court to destroy the dog. Has any member considered what that will really do if it comes in on 1 December this year—before Christmas—when just about every ordinary New Zealander knows that it is in the nature of dogs to rush? Rushing is what dogs do, particularly when they see cats. It is what dogs do in excitement. Rushing, as the new offence provides for, is something that every family pet will do, no matter how well controlled it is, at some stage or other. New section 57A in clause 29 provides that the court may order that a dog be destroyed if it has rushed at persons, animals, or vehicles. When that provision commences on 1 December this year there will be some very miserable families, if it is taken seriously—if the police bring prosecutions in respect of a dog’s normal behaviour towards cats. It does not even require, in that new offence, that there be any injury to anyone. It requires only that there be a risk of that. Of course, there is often such a risk. When a cat is sitting on the top of the letterbox and hissing in its defiance, but also in its satisfaction, at having evaded a dog, there could have been a risk of injury.

We should also look at the changes that this bill makes to section 57 of the principal Act when thinking of the commencement date, because we can see that section 57 states that the court must order destruction of the dog, unless it is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. Well, how exceptional is it for a dog to attack a cat? It happens every day. The most placid dog can be tempted into attacking a cat, and this legislation does not leave a judge with any discretion. It is not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. We have had judges who have given their comments about this provision. Yet the Parliament is to rush this legislation through and have it commence on 1 December this year, probably before most New Zealanders will even be aware that the bill is through, and before most New Zealanders have any idea that the risks now of owing a dog—something that is part of the heritage of this country far more than most of the pseudo-heritage that this Government tries to protect; the tradition of a family pet and of the kids being able to walk the dog in the park—are so high that for any family that does not have discretionary income, it will not be a sensible thing to have a dog.

Is that what this Minister wants—that the Christmas present is a new law that says people should not risk having a dog, because it could bankrupt them and their family if it so much as attacks one cat? There is no recollection of the wisdom in the old saying that every dog has one bite. Many dogs will have one bite, although they are perfectly sound, safe pets. They will have one bite because they are provoked. There is nothing in the bill that says a provoked dog should not be destroyed. Even a human gets self-defence as a defence.

I feel compelled to rise and rebut some points raised by the previous speaker that are simply not true. Rushing, for example, is not a new offence, at all. It is contained in the 1996 legislation, which continues in this legislation. It is given its own section in this new legislation, but it was contained in the Act. Also, rushing does not automatically lead to the destruction of a dog. A court may order a dog’s destruction through repeated and dangerous behaviour, but it has that discretionary power. Attacking, of course, does lead to the destruction of a dog, unless exceptional circumstances apply.

The previous speaker from the ACT party said the Government was rushing to get this bill through in time for this summer, so we could have a draconian and sort of holocaust approach to dogs. Actually, the issue is about getting this legislation through before the summer holidays begin, so that we can keep children safe in our community. Members of the House will remember that last summer there was a series of very dangerous dog attacks where some children were very badly injured and suffered life-threatening injuries. We do not want to see that repeated in our community.

The speaker from the Green Party, Mr Ward, raised a question about timing. I want to clarify for him that the provisions of the legislation apply, as far as the provisions on dangerous and menacing dogs are concerned, from the time the bill is signed into law. So for this summer the provisions about keeping dogs on leashes, muzzling dangerous breeds, and so on will apply, so that communities, especially children, will be safer.

I would like to make a few comments on clause 1A(1), which states: “Section 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004.” New section 52A(2)(b), inserted by clause 24, states that a dog must be “confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises”. I am sure we will have a more extensive debate on that provision when we come to Part 5. The requirement is a vast improvement on the original one, which was to provide fenced access to the front door, and I think it will be welcomed by many people. It is wise that the commencement of that provision does not occur until 1 June, because it will involve some costs to dog owners. It will require some planning on their part, to ensure that their properties comply with the regulations.

I think the provision is sensible and reasonable. I know that many people are concerned, when they jog and walk around communities, about dogs that are able to come straight out on to the road. Although those dogs may not actually engage in an attack, they do cause a considerable degree of fear and concern in people who are simply passing by properties. I welcome this measure, and I think it is sensible that it does not commence until next year.

However, the public should be made aware of the fact that this law is coming and that they will need to count the cost of having a dog on their property. If their dogs are to be allowed to circulate their sections completely, they will need to consider how they will meet this requirement to have them under control.

I was glad that the Minister did rise to clarify the point I raised—that the rushing offence has simply been expanded. But I ask him to consider, when looking at the commencement date of the new rushing provision, the fact that even though the rushing may have led to injury or death, the current Act still leaves the court with the discretion as to whether the dog is destroyed. The new provision—which has been substantially amended and which will commence on 1 December—leaves the courts with virtually no discretion. As soon as the court is satisfied that a dog has committed an attack, it has to order the dog’s destruction unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is simply not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. This provision does not require that the cat be hurt in any way—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Or a rat.

It could be a pet rat, too. This provision does not require any kind of damage to have occurred, and the courts have been concerned about that. They have expressed their concern about it a significant number of times.

This Christmas present to New Zealand families will change our culture. It has been part of the New Zealand upbringing and experience that families have dogs. The commencement date of 1 December is rushing things. People believe that this bill relates to dangerous dogs and to owners who have taken no responsibility for their dogs. The Local Government and Environment Committee came out with a whole lot of provisions designed to try to distinguish between dangerous dogs and dangerous and reckless owners, and the rest. Instead, we have ended up with a bill that will penalise even the most benign dog that bites just once.

It seems to ACT that this legislation should not commence until 2006, after the hysteria has passed. Most New Zealanders know that the legislation should contain provisions that instruct the police and local authorities to attack the gangs that have dogs that cause that sort of fear—to go for the owners who do not bother to register their dogs. The commencement date of 1 December 2003 will be a matter of utter indifference to the kinds of people who do not obey the law anyway, and whose dogs are not kept under control because they are not even registered. That commencement date should be deferred until there has been some cool reflection. The Minister should have an opportunity, as he will with the microchip provision—the 2006 provision—to think about whether he really means to make dog ownership beyond the reach of the average family, which cannot afford to pay the kinds of fines and legal costs that will be inflicted on it when a simple, single attack of the kind that this legislation penalises has occurred.

This bill ought to distinguish between dangerous dogs and other dogs, and ought to recognise the wisdom in the old saw that every dog has one bite. It ought to deal with the real problem, which is not the control of dogs generally but the control of gang members, families, and people who are often not in families, who do not give a stuff about any law. This legislation attacks innocent law-abiding people whose dog makes a mistake, or who themselves make a mistake. That will leave more misery in the long run, when children grow up without having had the pleasure of knowing what it is like to have a pet. New Zealanders, who live in one of the least densely populated countries, should be able to expect dog ownership to be seen as a right of children, but we will have prudent parents saying they cannot run the risk of that. They will ask what they can do if the woman down the road complains that their dog has rushed at her cat, and want to know how they can defend themselves if that occurs. It is a normal part of the relationship between dogs and cats that that occurs; our language is rich with the expectation of that. “Fighting like cats and dogs” is such an expression. It happens.

This Parliament has leapt in and wants to pass this legislation by 1 December 2003—to have it in effect literally in 2 weeks’ time, probably before it has been distributed and is known to people. I doubt, given the current state of the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s operation, whether the amended and published Act will be available even to lawyers, let alone to ordinary folk, by 1 December. That commencement date should not be the starting date for this legislation, because there is no assurance that New Zealanders will know what the changes are by then or that they will have the ability to look up the details of them. That is a breach of our principle of law.

I want to make a few more points with regard to the commencement date. Firstly, I refer to the point made by Larry Baldock about clause 24, which relates to the fencing provision. To my mind the Government has, fortunately, come to its senses. It has recognised that fencing half of New Zealand is inappropriate, and that the major thrust of this bill should certainly be on owner responsibility. The point is that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004.

The Government has suddenly today brought in Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter. It has not discussed with anyone that Supplementary Order Paper, which overrides the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and it has led to considerable confusion. I do not entirely agree with Stephen Franks of ACT that it is inappropriate that the bill comes into force on 1 December this year; I believe that the bill should have come in years ago. It was only because the Labour Government did not focus on the importance of preventable dog attacks for 4 long years that a crisis occurred, and, finally, it got around to doing something.

As I have pointed out, owner responsibility is vital, and clause 24 does indeed deal with the control of dogs on an owner’s property. It makes the point that the owner of a dog must at all times ensure that the dog is either under the direct control of a person or confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises. That, to my mind, is reasonable and is the sort of law that all responsible dog owners should abide by. If an owner is not abiding by that, then it is right and proper that appropriate fines are put on that person. Unfortunately, there is a small group of irresponsible owners.

That is the same argument that goes along with microchipping—again, these comments are on the commencement date because, after all, clauses 8, 15, and 35 are due to commence on 1 July 2006. Indeed, providing for universal microchipping was the difference the Government made on Supplementary Order Paper 167, overriding the select committee’s wishes. What is so aggravating about this Labour Government bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper on top of its bill, which has been to the select committee and amended by it, is that the bill is now quite different. We no longer know whether clause 8 is omitted, whether it comes into force on 1 December 2003, or whether it comes into force on 1 July 2006, as the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper states. I hope he will take a call to explain why clause 8 is omitted. I hope that he has rethought that, come to his senses again, and realised that the wisdom of the select committee should be followed: that universal microchipping is inappropriate in New Zealand, and that there are far more important priorities. This is the point that Mr Franks made.

We want to have practical enforcement of dog laws in New Zealand. We do not want to devote a huge amount of time and attention to expensive databases and microchipping every dog that is with a responsible owner. We want to clamp down on irresponsible owners, and ensure that the basic framework of the 1996 legislation is better enforced, because it has not been universally enforced around New Zealand. Hence I hope that the Minister will take a call to explain why he has suddenly brought in that Supplementary Order Paper to override the bill that this Parliament expected to see today, and to say whether he has indeed come to his senses and decided to do in with universal microchipping.

I move, That the question be now put.

A further amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 1A is inconsistent with the decision the Committee has just made, and I rule it out of order.

Clause 1A as amended agreed to.

Clause 2 Interpretation

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and clause 2 as amended agreed to.

New clause 2A Objects

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to insert new clause 2A be agreed to.

New clause 2A agreed to.

Part 1 Functions, duties, and powers of territorial authorities