Dog Control Amendment Bill

I believe I have in the order of 4 minutes and 53 seconds to speak on the schedules. Schedule 1 certainly demonstrates just how bad this Minister of Local Government’s perspective is in terms of priorities.

Under schedule 1, the infringement fee for “Failure to implant microchip transponder in dog” is $500, and the infringement fee for “Failure to keep dog controlled or confined” is also $500. Which is the one that will contribute most towards preventing dangerous dog attacks? Undoubtedly it is “Failure to keep dog controlled or confined”. Yet we have the Minister insisting that New Zealand dogs are universally microchipped. It seems to me that this is clearly a case of the Minister’s mind, his machinations, his love for bureaucracy, and his love for central control making his perspective get way out of line. The fine is $500 if one fails to implant a microchip in one’s pet chihuahua, or whatever it is, and $500 if one’s pit bull terrier is not controlled. That seems absolutely wrong. I think it is indicative of how this Labour Government has failed to look at the detail of this bill, but instead has insisted on smothering it in bureaucracy. The next offence in schedule 1 reads: “Failure to keep dog under control”. The infringement fee is $500. How does that compare with “Failure to implant microchip transponder in dog”, which also has a fee of $500? Certainly, in terms of achieving the aim of this bill, which is to prevent dog attacks that injure individuals, there is no comparison.

Why has this Minister gone against the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee and insisted on bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute that not even the chairman of the select committee, a Labour Government member, knew about? The chairman had not even read it. The Minister could not help himself—he slipped it in. He wanted to impose bureaucracy, to smother the bill with bureaucracy. When one analyses it, one finds that it is absolutely inappropriate that the infringement fee for failure to implant an unnecessary microchip is the same as that for failure to keep a dog controlled or confined, or failure to keep a dog under control. After all, we have clearly learnt that microchipping is unnecessary. It is not a priority and it is very costly.

We note that schedule 2 lists the dogs that are subject to a ban on importation. These include the Brazilian fila, the dogo Argentino, the Japanese tosa, and the American pit bull terrier. Again, one of my concerns comes back to the regulations regarding how one schedules the new breeds. It seems incredible that although the Regulations Review Committee recommended that this procedure was inappropriate, the bill before us shows us that the Labour Government prefers to see dogs added to schedule 4, in schedule 2, in this way, even though this matter is particularly controversial. Surely, all the checks and balances of the traditional parliamentary procedure should be looked at very carefully and maintained when one is going to add breeds to schedule 4. It seems quite incredible that the Minister chooses to ignore the advice of the Regulations Review Committee. Not only does he ignore the advice of the select committee but he ignores the advice of the Regulations Review Committee, and I think that is very sad.

Schedule 4, in schedule 2, encapsulates some of the concerns about breed-specific legislation. Those concerns are still with us. Even as late as this afternoon, at half past 1, we were talking to people about the potential impact of this schedule. I think they were not sensible to the fact that in the previous part there is—and this is complementary to schedule 4—the ability for a new breed or another breed or type to be categorised or classified according to a very set procedure. It includes consulting with, and getting advice from, local government, dog societies, animal welfare organisations, and so on.

If there are still people out there who are concerned about breed-specific legislation, I say to them that we did not go the same way that other countries have. It is a very, very small list of dogs, and those dogs are very few in number. The American pit bull terrier does pose some problems with regard to the first cross. But we looked at that matter, and the same criteria listed in section 78C, in clause 39—the tendency of the breed to attack and to exhibit aggressive behaviour, and the risks to public safety—would be factors to consider, if there were some concern about the American pit bull terrier, and if it were not dealt with by the earlier parts of the bill.

So, basically, the new schedule 4 takes a realistic, common-sense approach. There are guarantees in the present bill to reassure those people who are concerned about the “breed not need” concept. That the number of dogs concerned is few fits very well with the general common-sense approach that the Local Government and Environment Committee had.

I would like to take a call on the schedules. Hopefully, the Minister of Local Government will answer a couple of questions that I have for him, if he would not mind. There is a fine of $500 listed in schedule 1 for failure to keep a dog under control. Can the Minister show me anywhere in this bill a definition of “control”? Does it mean a dog on a leash, or walking at heel, or strolling along in front? What exactly is the definition of this word “control”? I can see quite a lot of conjecture by many in the Kennel Club and so on as to exactly what it means.

I think members of the Committee might be interested to know that just an hour ago my secretary had a ring from the Kennel Club relating to a little story I had told about a child grabbing a dog’s unmentionables. I stand corrected; the term is “manhood”. I want to ensure that that is correct, and I am grateful to the Kennel Club for that. Obviously, the Kennel Club is very, very interested in what is going on during this debate. I am sure it will be equally interested in the schedules.

I find in the schedules descriptions of the offences that can be perpetrated against society, such as wilful obstruction of dog control officers, and false statements relating to registration. Where in this bill are significant fines imposed against the breeders of fighting dogs, for example? Instead of $500, why not make it $100,000? It seems to me that nowhere in this bill are there sanctions against the people whom this bill is desperately trying to pick up. The gangs are not mentioned. They are one of the big sources of the fighting dogs that cause so much damage. They use cross-breeding, which makes it almost impossible for the dog control officers, in the execution of their duties, to determine exactly whether those dogs are one of the breeds mentioned in schedule 2. I suspect the bill will also start driving the breeding of those dangerous dogs even more underground than it is. It will make life even more difficult for the dog control officers and for the legitimate owners of dogs.

Coming back to the schedules, I note that the fine for failure to carry a leash is $100. We all forget to carry our driver’s licence from time to time. [Interruption] Barbara Stewart says she is a totally law-abiding citizen. Well, if one has a couple of vehicles, one can leave one’s licence in the wrong vehicle from time to time. Again, we are penalising the innocent when the real perpetrators of problems in this society seem to roam completely free.

There is a $1,000 fine for allowing certain dogs to be at large unmuzzled. Again, the language in the bill is appalling. How do we define those “certain” dogs? Again, it will be interpreted by some one way and by others a different way. I have no doubt that various territorial authorities will put their own interpretation on it. It seems to be a trait of this Government that it passes legislation that it then allows society or the courts to interpret; the legislation does not say what Parliament meant. Our job is to provide certainty. Whether in the Dog Control Amendment Bill or in any other bill, we should be providing absolute certainty to the courts, the territorial authorities, or whoever it might be, as to what Parliament wants. We should be stating precisely what a dangerous dog is, or what a “certain” dog that must be muzzled is. There should be no ambiguity, so that members of the public know exactly what the Government is proposing, and so they are able to vote against the Government at the next election with even greater vigour and fervour.

I want to make a couple of comments on the new schedule 1, “Infringement offences and fees”, of the principal Act. There was quite a bit of discussion about finding the appropriate amount of fine for these classifications. It is important that the penalty should fit the crime, particularly because the dog control officers are trying to work positively, for the most part, with people in the community. They do not want to have to impose a fine that is too onerous, when they feel that people have not been breaking the law intentionally or purposely. It has been difficult to come up with the right amounts.

I point out that dog control officers have an alternative approach. If they feel the amount is not sufficient to penalise someone, they can take that person to court by issuing a summary offence and, hopefully, can have a greater penalty imposed, thus sending a message to that particular individual that his or her behaviour is not tolerated. The frustration that many dog control officers have, they tell me, is that when they do that, they find that the courts often impose a fine that is even less than the infringement amount, so they have gone through that process for very little gain. I hope the new figures will also give a message to the courts about what the appropriate fine is when dog control officers have gone to the trouble of taking people to court to prosecute them.

A couple of offences in the new schedule 1 were of concern to us. One was the increase to $500 of the fine for failure to register a dog. The real problem across the country is that many of the councils have not been imposing the old fine of $200, at all, and people have been allowed not to register their dogs. If they are caught, the councils simply say that if they register them at that point, they will let them off. That is contributing to the large number of unregistered dogs in the country. People are not worried about having to pay a fine, if they are caught. It is important, if this legislation is to be successful and deal with the number of unregistered dogs, that the councils mandatorily impose that fine.

But we felt that $500 was a little bit too much. It is more than, I think, what people are fined for driving an unregistered car on the road. So I have tabled an amendment to alter that amount to $300. I have been advised by a dog control officer in Tauranga that that is a much more sensible and appropriate figure. That amount of fine would also apply to failure to keep a dog under control or failure to keep a dog confined. Dog control officers need flexibility in the way that they address the public. If they feel there is good will, they do not want to impose too stiff a penalty. I submit those amendments for the support of the members of the Committee when we come to vote on them.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to:

to omit from the item relating to section 42, the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to:

to omit from the item relating to section 52A, the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to:

to omit from the item relating to section 53(1), the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”.

Amendment agreed to.

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