Dog Control Amendment Bill

Part 2 deals with dog control officers, dog rangers, and dog control bylaws, and seems eminently sensible—unlike the member for Otaki, from time to time—in repealing section 15 of the Act and substituting a new section 15, as set out in clause 5. That section, headed “Power of dog control officer or dog ranger to feed and shelter dogs”, is an appropriate part of the bill. The SPCA and, in fact, the whole of New Zealand would be totally in agreement that a dog control officer or a dog ranger who has “reasonable grounds to suspect that a dog is without access to proper and sufficient food, water, or shelter may enter on any land or premises where the dog is present and ... supply the dog with food, water, or shelter:”.

It is important that we ask questions so that we can ensure that the dog control officer leaves appropriate notes that are readily accessible. That is so that he or she can be identified, and the circumstances readily sorted out by the landowners if, due to totally unpredictable events, they have left their animal at home—such as being in a car crash and taken to hospital—rather than the situation being one of absolute neglect. It is important that in certain circumstances it is a two-way responsibility, and that is spelt out in this part.

Clause 7 is headed “Power of constable, dog control officer, or dog ranger to request information”. That was highly relevant to the Owen and Hill case, which was such a tragedy for Carolina Anderson. In that situation, wrong information was given to people involved, and it is vital that, as subclause (1) states: “A constable, dog control officer, or dog ranger may, for the purposes of this Act, request the following persons to state his or her name, date of birth, address, telephone contact number, and place of work ... (a) any person appearing to be in charge of a dog; or (b) any person appearing to be the occupier of any land or premises on which a dog for the time being is being kept.” We totally agree with that. It is right and proper that that provision be in this part of the bill.

I note that the fine has substantially increased—from $1,500 to $3,000. One of the practical difficulties is that if fines become too much for minor offences, one could find that this law will not be accepted in a practical sense and that people will avoid their responsibilities. While that sum is reasonable, and it is reasonable in the case of Owen and Hill—in fact, the fine should have been much more than $3,000—it is important that the territorial authorities have discretion in certain circumstances to be able to impose minor penalties for minor offences.

I go on to clause 8, which deals with dog control by-laws. I note that the Minister, in his complete lack of wisdom, has deleted this area and instead put it into his new Supplementary Order Paper. I find it extraordinary that not even the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who is on the side of the Labour Government, was aware that the Minister was to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper this afternoon that carries very important but not obvious details. This is quite a difficult bill to make in terms of the amendments to the original Act. It is absolutely irresponsible of the Minister not to have consulted the chair of his own select committee—let alone members of the other parties, who worked in collaboration when this bill was before the select committee to try to make it as good as it could be.

With regard to Part 2, the committee members arrived at a very sound set of clauses. They clarified for us the powers of dog rangers and dog officials to seize unregistered or offending dogs. One of the issues raised in the submissions was the need for consistency of enforcement. That call came from the SPCA in Auckland, and from other bodies, as well. Part 2 does that. It makes clear the ability of the dog control officer to go to the next stage after he or she has seized the dog. It gives reasonable rights to the owner of the dog, but it also has a vision for the care of the animal meanwhile. That is what one would expect of a humane council faced with the problem of unregistered or offending dogs.

Part 2 also clarifies the implied rights of all owners or occupiers of a house. That potential impediment has been overcome in the part we are debating. The provisions are sensible, and there are no great problems in them with regard to the way they will be carried out in practice. I have already talked to three dog rangers on the issues in clauses 5, 6, and 7. They believe that those provisions are an improvement on what was there before. They had further suggestions—which always arise after the event—but at the present time it is a reasonable and sane part for us to consider further.

Part 2 of this bill, as other speakers have intimated, is very important. Essentially, it is very much about animal welfare. There can be few issues for New Zealand that are more important. I mention briefly the need to ensure more than adequate animal welfare rules and regulations so that we treat our animals appropriately, in order to ensure the image that New Zealand has of being an agricultural nation that is reliant on animal products. There are always those who from time to time, for whatever reason, do neglect their animals. They either let them roam free, or feed them in an inadequate way. There should be appropriate controls and powers for dog control officers—or indeed even neighbours, I suspect—to come in and ensure that the animal is well treated with adequate food, water, and shelter.

Reading Part 2, I could not help but reflect on the question of why cats are not also involved. I know we are dealing with dogs in this particular issue, but I cannot help but think we are putting welfare controls in so that dogs get a good looking after, when I am sure there are many cat lovers around this country who would believe there should be legislation for their little moggies and so on. However, that might be for another day—God forbid!

💬 Larry Baldock: What about pet rabbits?

Oh, and pet rabbits and all! I want to just emphasise the point that animal welfare is a very serious issue and should be treated as such by those in authority to ensure that, as I mentioned earlier, the image of New Zealand is not tainted by those who for whatever reason are inadequate in their care of animals.

Clause 8 in Part 2 inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act that requires “dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purpose of providing permanent identification of dogs:”. This is one of the areas of the bill that will cause some real controversy. Indeed, I spoke with a retired school headmistress last night who was very concerned about this particular issue. She has imported a Danish something or other. I asked her how big it was, and she said: “It’s just a little wee guy.”, and, she said: “There is no way I am going to put a microchip into my dog.”

💬 Larry Baldock: She won’t have to.

Somebody else will do it for her, I suppose.

💬 Larry Baldock: No, it’s only the new dogs from 2006.

Well, the point is that after that time, if she gets a new pup or whatever of this particular breed, there will be huge reluctance by people to understand why the Minister believes that dogs of this size, little chihuahuas or the—[Interruption] Well, there we go: “Dog-chip plan draws mixed reaction”—Mr Peters is just showing me one of the local papers. There is some real concern about the necessity for putting a microchip into the small Jack Russells—the ones that, while they can be a bit snappy, are not really the problem. The focus of this bill is always on the pit bull terriers and the large dogs—those that are considered to be dangerous dogs. But it emphasises the point that all dogs potentially can be dangerous to a very small child. To a baby, a very small dog might be of some threat, but microchipping them will not be the solution. Microchipping a chihuahua, for example, seems to me to be a bit unnecessary, to say the very least, but the microchipping of a rather large Dobermann, Alsatian, or pit bull terrier does have some merit. But the people who we demand should have these dogs registered and microchipped are the very people who will refuse to present their dogs for registration or to receive the microchip transponder so that they can be tracked and traced, and the owners identified.

In speaking to Part 2 I want to make a few brief comments. First of all, it is about dog control officers, dog rangers, and dog control by-laws, and particularly the dog control officers and dog rangers are crucial to the success of this legislation. It is important that we have taken the time in the bill to give them some clarity and some additional powers so they can do their job; it is not a job I would like to have to do in this country, given the number of wild and mangy dogs that roam the streets. So, I trust they will be encouraged by some of the additional powers given to them. I know of one very happy dog control officer who was almost stunned with the number of amendments in this bill—little pieces of the existing legislation that those officers have wanted to see improved, tweaked, and adjusted over the years, and he is very, very happy that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done such a thorough job in addressing lots of these issues.

Clause 5 introduces a new section 15 into the Dog Control Act, including subsection (5), which provides: “All reasonable costs incurred in the seizure, custody, sustenance, and transport of a dog under this section may be recovered as debt from the owner of the dog.” I think that is a very important part of this section, because we often hear people complaining about how responsible people are penalised by those who are not responsible. At the moment, a lot of the costs of dogs being impounded and so on are borne by those who pay their rates. So this section sends a very good signal that the costs of being irresponsible will be passed back to people by way of a charge or a debt, and we should all take some satisfaction from that.

With regard to microchipping, as mentioned by the previous speaker, it is important that the message gets out across the country, and I am sure it will come out more as we debate microchipping later, that in fact the legislation does deal only with new dogs being registered from 2006. People need not fear that their current pets will have to be subjected to this. It will be the new pups as they come into the world and are registered and vaccinated that will have chips implanted. Currently, anybody who purchases a purebred dog will find that the New Zealand Kennel Club already inserts microchips in them for purposes of identification, so that is not likely to be of grave concern to those who have bought their pedigree dogs.

We support the bill. It is good legislation by and large, but we are still concerned about clause 8, which inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act, requiring dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purposes of permanent identification. The other day the Minister said that the cost of the registration would fall on too few dog owners, and in fact the cost of requiring every dog to be implanted will fall on all dog owners. The cost of the registration would have been on all dogs anyway, and the national register would have been on all dogs, and it will be, I presume, from the commencement of this bill. I am not quite sure when the national register comes into force, but I imagine that it will come into force from the date the bill is enacted. It is an issue that some people feel particularly sensitive about, and I hasten to add that I am aware it is a very small device—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That will be more appropriately discussed under Part 4. We are on Part 2 at the moment, which has four clauses.

Section 20(1)(ga)—clause 8?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Clauses 5 to 8.

We believe that dog control is quite possible under existing rules. I said the other day, the offences that occur are more frequently about law badly applied, not bad law. In fact, the new law tweaks the old law and puts some important new pieces in. However, dog control can be quite well carried out under the present law without microchipping. Our concern remains.

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

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

Part 3 Probationary and disqualified owners