Dog Control Amendment Bill

I am reminded of the old cliché: “Every dog has his day”, particularly when it comes to this Minister of Local Government. This Minister has chosen a very bad case to introduce some very bad law with regard to the microchipping of dogs across the whole of New Zealand. I am reminded of that old saying because, despite the fact there has been concern about this dog law through about three Parliaments, under this Government we are today debating this bill, yet in the case of horrendous crimes against people—and 92 percent voted in the election before last for tougher sentencing—we have done nothing. When it comes to dogs and the case of the little girl Carolina Anderson who was injured, we are today rushing through legislation that will result in the microchipping of every dog in New Zealand.

In the Local Government and Environment Committee there was widespread support for most of the intent that is set out in this legislation, but there was certainly no support for microchipping every dog and the cost that goes with that. This Minister, under the advice that he was given, said: “I’ll make a generous offer. We’ll set up the database. We’ll put up the dough for that.” It would probably have been a smarter decision for the Minister to say: “We’ll spend a bit of money on education on dogs, particularly dangerous dogs and dog ownership.” Instead of that, the Government has decided it will set up another INCIS computer program somewhere—another quango somewhere that is likely to end up in disaster.

💬 Hon Annette King: Who made that hash?

Listen to the interjection from the other side of the Committee! That has certainly set members on that side alight. They never learn. They should learn from the mistakes of the past.

The Government is to set up a computer program. How will a computer program go out on the streets and prosecute and track down those who flagrantly abuse the law? How will it work? How will it actually bring to heel the dangerous dogs listed in this bill that people still keep and do not have microchipped? How will it work? What will the Government do to ensure that local authorities around New Zealand enforce the law? I appeal to local authorities up and down New Zealand that may be listening to this debate to please go out and implement the intention of this law, but show sensible discretion when it comes to sensible owners who do not have their dogs microchipped, or do not meet other restraints or regulations that may be placed on them in this legislation. Much has been made of the fact that it is a family tradition—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Clauses 3 and 4 are the clauses under discussion.

I am aware of that, and I will come back to those clauses. Clause 8 allows microchipping. I accept that it is outside the Part 1 debate we are having at the moment, but it is at the guts of—[Interruption] Does the Minister have something to say? I did not catch that.

💬 Darren Hughes: Everyone is trying to help the member.

Yes, I am grateful for that support. Surely the Minister will take a call to correct any mistakes he thinks I might have made with regard to the discussion I am involved in. I will wait for that call and listen with great interest.

The bottom line is we are debating legislation today that will not fix the problem that is associated with the reason why this debate is taking place. Unless we have local government bodies that are prepared to go out and enforce the law, and unless we have a Government that is prepared to support those people in that role, then this bill will not overcome the problems we have. If members look at the various bits of Part 1, they will find that local authorities must adopt a policy to regulate the behaviour of dogs in public places. Well, will they? Will the Minister make sure they do that? Will they do so in the future? There has been no evidence of it in the past. In fact, if the law had been upheld in that regard, the particular case in point would not have happened.

The previous speaker, the National spokesperson, Mr Ardern, asked two very, very good questions. He asked what the Government was doing about education about dog safety. Clearly, that member has not been reading the releases from my office. If he had, he would know that some months ago the Government agreed to set aside half a million dollars for a public education campaign about dog safety. That member was quite right; we could set up every law we can to try to make the community safe and to encourage the local bodies that have to enforce the law to carry out their obligations, but we could never prevent, especially in the home, attacks by dogs. I am focusing a half-million-dollar public education programme on dog safety in schools and kindergartens in order to get that dog safety message across, because it is very important.

The previous speaker also asked what the Government was doing about making sure that the councils followed the new regulations and rules. Firstly, the member should know, from reading clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1, that the councils must review their dog control policies and apply strengthened criteria to places where children are more likely to gather and where attacks can happen.

A former speaker raised the question of little Carolina Anderson, the girl who was attacked in Auckland last Christmas. She was playing at a park where there was an Auckland City Council sign saying “No dogs off leashes”. That was a case where a territorial authority was not carrying out its existing legal requirements. I am not criticising the Auckland City Council; it is one of the most proactive councils, but in that particular case it was not carrying out its legal requirements. What we have done is give the local authorities a strong steer to look at the issue again, and they are all going to do that. They are required to give effect to their new dog control policies by making new by-laws, if necessary, and they have to do it quite quickly—within 60 days.

They have until 1 September 2004 to revise their policies. I hope they do that within the spirit of the new Local Government Act, which means engaging with their communities in making decisions about, for example, which areas will be leashed areas—where all dogs will need to be on a leash—and which areas will be for dogs to roam free. I am hoping the councils will look very carefully at the criteria that are set in the legislation; they refer to areas that the public use widely, and areas where children will be found—playgrounds, schoolyards, and so on. Those are areas where dogs should be leashed.

The speaker was right; we have to give a strong message to local government authorities to carry out their obligations. We have now empowered them with greater ability to do that. We have given them a strong message about the safety measures to consider in drawing up those regulations. Together with that basket of new legislation is also a package on education for people about dog safety, because that is a very important part of the whole new thrust of this legislation, which, in the end, is about keeping the community safer.

In looking at Part 1, clauses 3 and 4, I point out that the Local Government and Environment Committee was guided by the fact that we had before us a survey of territorial authorities on dog control issues—both the interim report in March and the final one in June. In that survey the adequacy of the 1996 Act was in question. Some sections were agreed to by the councils, but they were divided over whether the Act had adequate powers for identifying potentially dangerous dogs, preventing incidents involving the same owner, preventing dangerous dog incidents, and seizing dangerous dogs.

The policy in clause 3 is one that the committee felt could be realised out in the council world. We felt there needed to be more rigorous enforcement, but the way in which it is done is still left in the hands of the local council. The policies that the councils are required to plan seemed to us to be reasonable. In particular, clause 4 is an improvement. It requires the councils to report back on their dog control policies, and we hope the Department of Internal Affairs’ template check of best practices will go with that. The end result for the councils will be a reporting system that is known by their ratepayers and residents, and that is an improvement on that which is there at the present time.

Since the committee reported back I have talked to several councils about the bill. They are in agreement that some of them need to do better. They are also very conscious of the fact that there is a cost issue as well. My last point is that it may very well be that when they look at the requirements in clauses 3 and 4 that the legislation in its final form will set out for them, they will realise that the common good factor that has been called for by the people out there, with regard to their demands for better dog control, means that responsible dog owners should not be the only ones to pay the cost of meeting the requirements of this policy. In their planning for 2004-05, the common good factor should mean that the cost comes from the general ratepayer as well as from the revenue received from responsible dog owners.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I support both clauses 3 and 4, in Part 1.

I thank Mr Jim Peters for raising the issue of the response of local government to the survey I put out last Christmas asking the councils all over New Zealand—all 76 of them that are required to enforce this legislation—how effective the 1996 legislation was. Frankly, I was appalled with the response we got. A few councils were good record-keepers. Some were absolutely hopeless; they did not keep any records at all. We did not have any way of finding out how many dogs were registered in New Zealand, because of the shoddy and inconsistent record-keeping of the councils.

The legislation gives a strong direction to, and requirement on, territorial authorities to have best practice. There was a bit of best practice. I hope that at the end of this there will be best practice everywhere. The Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled requires that the councils record the basis of each individual classification of a menacing dog. It also provides that the councils give a copy of that to the Secretary of Local Government. So we are following it up. It will be checked on. That will help to ensure that central government and local government have statistics available so that they know what is happening with dogs in our community, what percentage of dogs are registered dogs, how many attacks are taking place, and whether there are remedial steps that can be taken to try to prevent and mitigate against those attacks.

Again, I emphasise that this bill is about public safety. These are common-sense provisions that we hope will improve public safety.

Indeed, clauses 3 and 4 are among the very important, practical things the bill does. The Local Government and Environment Committee learnt that enforcement and the keeping of records around the country were extremely variable, and that several territorial authorities had far more optimal keeping of records and enforcement than others did, as the Minister of Local Government said. By ensuring that the territorial authority must report annually, we are putting in a very important discipline that will allow benchmarking throughout the country. It is a great shame that we have so many territorial authorities. Hopefully, the next National Government, which comes into power in 2005, will attend to that. But, despite that, there is no doubt that this part of the bill will allow benchmarking throughout the territorial authorities in New Zealand, so that those territorial authorities on the margins can be easily identified and brought up to speed in terms of ensuring that best-practice guidelines are adhered to.

One of the other useful things that emanated from the select committee and the submissions was that it was appropriate that a publication of best-practice guidelines be available to all territorial authorities, so that they could use it as the blueprint for how they would respond. Undoubtedly, it seems to me that that is a much more democratic and voluntary way to impose standards of dog control than having highly prescriptive legislation as is implied by the microchipping aspect, which the Minister is so hell-bent on imposing.

Certainly, these two clauses, clauses 3 and 4 of Part 1, are key to ensuring we have good standards of record-keeping in New Zealand. After all, one of the difficulties of quantifying whether we have serious dog attacks in New Zealand has been the fact that there has been such variable record-keeping. The research unit in Dunedin has done a very assiduous job in that area, and I understand that in the order of 300 serious dog attacks per year in New Zealand result in people requiring hospitalisation, but many thousands of other dog attacks go unreported. Clauses 3 and 4 will indeed add that discipline, by ensuring across New Zealand that there are far better standards, that far better records are kept, and that the territorial authorities that are on the margins—of which there are many—are pinpointed.

I hope we will have ministerial oversight that ensures those records are kept, and I hope the Minister will take a call in a moment or two to explain to Parliament how he, as the Minister at present, from 1 December will ensure that this part of the bill is followed and adhered to. I believe that it is practical and worthwhile.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is a rather important bill and I am happy to talk about Part 1—clauses 2 and 3. It is quite apparent when debating this bill that there is a hugely good intent in it. I do not think anybody doubts there are problems out there. But it is the applying of it in practice in which I see some real problems.

An example of the requirements now to be placed on territorial authorities is new paragraph (4)(b) of section 10, which has been inserted in clause 3: “the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access ...”. What exactly does that phrase “uncontrolled access” mean? Does it mean the dog will be on a leash, so that he is controlled while he gets access, or does it mean the dog is uncontrolled on, say, a beachfront? Whether it be winter or summer, huge numbers of people will be there. I do not understand what “uncontrolled access” to public beaches actually is. I assume there will be some dog inspectors at those public facilities checking to see whether the dogs concerned are controlled. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps explain that a little to me. Does it mean that when dogs are on the beach, running free and chasing birds or sticks, as they do, they are, in a very real sense, not controlled? By very definition, a dog that is taken for a run is not under absolute control, unless the owner has been to a kennel club or that sort of thing, and has instant control of the dog. My experience of urban dwellers especially is that they use voice control to try to control dogs in these public places, and that is not a practical way of doing it. It is only members of the farming community, it seems to me, who manage to control their dogs; they control them in a much more disciplined way than do so many people who take their animals into what I would call urban situations. So I ask how we are to control animals that are allowed to roam free in those specific areas.

I have some other real problems, too. I was hoping to get a call on the earlier part of this bill, where I could have talked about the concept—I think the Minister spoke about it—of education of the public and, indeed, of the dogs. Education requires an extensive period of time. Owners will not be educated, nor will dogs, in the very short time frames that this bill allows for, so the exercise of having controlled animals in public places frequented by children is probably a totally impractical suggestion or requirement by this bill.

There is also a requirement for the territorial authority to have regard for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners. What exactly is that, and how in a practical sense will it occur? Will there be a park for dog owners and their dogs, and another park next door, or will the park be divided up by a solid fence that dogs cannot jump over? I do not think the practicalities have been thought through of how amenities will be provided for the public so that they can enjoy the great outdoors free from dogs—whether it be free from their faeces or just free from their presence. It seems logical to me that we will have to fence these areas in half, to allow for both situations to occur.

The cost of that alone will be very prohibitive, and rates will go up yet again. If the Government is dead keen to promote this bill, maybe some funding should also follow its passage. One of the problems that territorial authorities face is that although they are compelled to implement the will of the Government on any issue, that may not be accompanied by an appropriate amount of funding. It always falls back on the poor old long-suffering ratepayers, many of whom may not be dog owners, so why should they have to pay?

Those are the sorts of concepts I do not believe the Government has really thought through. It has not given a practical look at this whole situation.

In this Part 1, I believe that clause 3, “Duty of territorial authorities to adopt policy on dogs”, and clause 4, which inserts what will become new section 10A, “Territorial authority must report on dog control policy and practices”, will do more for achieving the aims of the bill than almost anything else we have in the legislation. The very crux of any law is how it is enforced, and I think that all of us on the Local Government and Environment Committee acknowledged that. The Hon Ken Shirley said very early on in the discussion that in his opinion the major problem was that the current law was not being enforced enough, and most of us would agree with that. It is probably a result of the fact that he has been living in Tauranga for a number of years that such common sense is beginning to rub off on him, and why he is making such wise statements from time to time.

Clearly, it is councils doing their jobs and making sure they enforce the laws that have been passed by Parliament that will guarantee a safer environment for our families, our children, and everybody, with regard to the possibility of attacks from dogs. The first stage is for councils to adopt a policy, and this is an excellent process. I welcome the Minister’s amendment in his Supplementary Order Paper that foresees and makes clear the importance of enabling the public to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs. That needs to be to the extent that is practical, which is what is contained within his amendment. I welcome that, because otherwise we may be asking councils to do the very impossible. They can do only the possible, and do the very best they can.

In clause 4, the things that the territorial authority will have to report on are vital. That provision has been referred to earlier, as we had the Department of Internal Affairs report to the committee on what was currently going on around the country. As the Minister has said and others have referred to, some of the reporting was appalling. Without good information and data, we cannot make good laws, and if there is a need in the future for further amendment, it will need to be based upon very accurate statistics across the country about what really is taking place. We may find that the situation has improved so much that in time we can begin to give a bit more freedom back to dog owners. As more and more dog owners become responsible, perhaps we will be able to ease up on the requirements in this legislation.

I welcome these two clauses. I believe the most important provision is that the territorial authority must give public notice of the report, because the best people to keep local councils accountable for their role and responsibility are the people those councils serve. A Big Brother Government will not watch over all the councils to make sure that they do their jobs; instead, local residents will be able to look at that report every year and see whether their council is doing a good job. If the report is shoddy, with plenty of holes and things that are not reported on, then that council will be held accountable by its community, and I think that is an excellent way forward. These two clauses are essential, and will perhaps provide the most safety and security for members of the public.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Dog control officers, dog rangers, and dog control bylaws