Dog Control Amendment Bill

Part 3 deals with probationary and disqualified owners. I note that section 21 of the Dog Control Act, which describes the classification of probationary owners, refers to the fact that a territorial authority may classify a person as a probationary owner if that person commits three or more infringement offences within a continuous period of 24 months, and also if there has been a conviction for any offence against the Act.

I also note that in the bill the territorial authority still has the discretion to require probationary owners to undertake training. I think it would be useful for the Minister, the Hon Chris Carter, to take a call and explain to us why it is not a requirement for such individuals to undertake training, education, etc, but a discretion. Clearly, if there has been a conviction under the Act, and if there have been three or more infringement notes, then it seems to me that it would be appropriate to ensure that the owner undertake a territorial authority - approved dog owner education programme, or dog obedience course, or both, and that the person pay for undergoing that training or obedience course. It seems quite out of order that we would still have discretion after there have been clear infringements against the basic Act.

Part 3 also deals with the disqualification of owners. I notice that clause 11(1) states that, “if a person is disqualified from owning a dog under section 25 the person must,—(b) not subsequently be in possession of a dog at any time, except for the purpose of—(i) preventing a dog from causing injury, damage, or distress; or (ii) returning, within 72 hours, a lost dog to the territorial authority”.

This is of concern, when we come to the case of Thomas Owen and Brian Hill, because we want to be absolutely explicit. I hope the Minister will take a call regarding the question of someone being in possession of someone else’s dog. I have put in an amendment that should cover this situation fairly clearly so that instead of “not subsequently be in possession of a dog at any time”, we should add, “not subsequently be in possession of a dog, or control of a dog in a public place, at any time”, to make absolutely sure that such incidences as have occurred with Thomas Owen and Brian Hill do not occur.

The other thing that concerns me about probation and the disqualification of owners is whether this will apply right throughout New Zealand. One territorial authority may apply such a requirement to an owner, but the owner may go to another territorial authority. Consequently, I have put in an amendment that hopefully will deal with this. It amends the principal Act to ensure that “The classification of a person as a probationary owner applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that classification”. The same applies to disqualification also, so that owners cannot go from one part of New Zealand to another, and therefore get off the hook. I hope the Minister will take a call and assure the Committee that he has covered these very important issues.

In reference to Part 3, the point just made by Dr Hutchison is correct. There was, I believe, an intention at the time to encourage best practice—in other words, for there to be improved or better practice on the part of territorial local authorities. So clause 9 is a discretionary clause. But clause 10, regarding the disqualification of owners, is an absolute provision. It uses the word “must”, and in that regard there will be consistency of enforcement throughout the country. Several bodies raised the issue that there be consistency with regard to enforcement, and that is there in clause 10. It was the intention of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the time that that be so, but that the legislation be fair and reasonable. There are three strikes, and it is after the third strike that people are out. If people are out after the third strike, then they are on the bench for 5 years. That is what the clause states to a dog owner who has not been responsible and has not taken due care of an animal. I think that both clauses are fair and reasonable, and deserve support.

Dr Hutchison raised the question of whether the legislation provides for coverage throughout New Zealand. I assure the member that section 29 of the Act already provides for disqualification throughout New Zealand. Dr Hutchison also asked why councils should have discretion over whether they can order a probationary owner to undergo dog education. Not every circumstance is the same, so councils have the discretion to do that. They can choose to order that on a case by case basis, and I think that is a very sensible approach.

I want to take a short call. I wonder whether the Minister may elaborate a little on what happens if a territorial authority—such as the one in Otago, for example—does not have a facility where a person may “undertake, at his or her expense, a dog owner education programme or a dog obedience course (or both) approved by the territorial authority.” If I take my own situation as an example, in Alexandra, to my certain knowledge there is no such facility. There may well be one in Oamaru or Dunedin, 2½ hours away. Is the intent of the bill really to ask people to jump in their car once or twice a week and travel very extensive distances? It is not like living in Wellington or Christchurch, where there may be two or three of those facilities. I am not at all certain how many of them there are in my own region; perhaps I should have checked on that before coming to the Chamber. But I am perfectly certain that there is no such facility in, for example, Alexandra, which is quite a reasonable-sized town. Nor is there one in Wanaka or Queenstown, so we would have to go to Oamaru or Dunedin for training.

That is a huge imposition on dog owners, for what might have been a small misdemeanour on the part of a little dog that needs a bit of education, or on the part of an owner who needs a bit of education. How will it be practically achieved, if the facility is a good 2 or 3 hours’ travel time away? Is that a fair and reasonable request or demand to place on an owner? Has that been thought through? I am not certain whether it has. As everybody is aware, the cost of jumping in one’s car, and having a dog carrier or similar facility to attach to one’s vehicle to carry a dog long distances, is a real expense. I would imagine that $150 would be attached to the round trip, in many cases. Is that the intent of the bill? Again, I can only reiterate that in the bigger cities, of course, there may be a number of such facilities, but in smaller provincial communities I would be very surprised to find one or two, at the very most, of those sorts of facilities available to ensure that the territorial authority can, in fact, impose that requirement and that it can be met by the individuals concerned.

I wonder whether the Minister may take a call on this issue. I am all for the education of dog owners and dogs; I think that is highly appropriate. But dog owners have to have facilities in their own districts in the first instance, to allow that to occur. There may be an opportunity for an enterprising individual to start up dog training facilities, as a result of this legislation. That remains to be seen. But if a territorial authority has a problem with a handful of dogs—say a maximum of half a dozen dogs during any one particular 12-month period—is that really worthwhile, and what is the practicality of employing a dog training officer, or running a dog obedience course? Again, that cost will come back on to the poor, long-suffering ratepayers, who will have to front up for the cost of such a facility.

I will leave the matter there, and I ask whether the Minister will, in fact, inform me of how such education and training will be achieved if there are no facilities in any given district.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 9 be agreed to:

to insert, before clause 9, the following clause:

9AA Probationary owners

Section 23 of the principal Act is amended by inserting, after subsection (2), the following subsection:

(2A) The classification of a person as a probationary owner applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that classification.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 10 be agreed to:

to insert in new section 25 of the principal Act, after subsection (3), the following subsection:

(3A) disqualification under subsection (1) applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that disqualification.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 11 be agreed to:

to insert, in new section 28(1)(b) of the principal Act, after the words “in possession of a dog”, the words “or control of a dog in a public place”.