Dog Control Amedment Bill

I move, That the Dog Control Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this bill to the House. It is a further milestone in meeting the changing expectations we have about what is, and what is not, responsible dog ownership. That much of the bill reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee was unanimously supported shows there is clearly widespread political support to do more to improve dog control.

Following a series of particularly vicious dog attacks that occurred last summer, Parliament referred back to the Local Government and Environment Committee the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2). This bill was principally about eliminating American pit bull terriers. The House gave the committee the power to consider and adopt new amendments relating to the care and control of dogs. The Government for its part provided the committee with a broader set of proposals to consider than those in the original bill. Collectively, those proposals aimed to improve public safety from dog attacks.

City and district councils are at the forefront of dog control. We must provide them with the right tools and powers to ensure that, as far as possible, dogs with the potential to be aggressive are kept from doing harm, and that their owners have a clear understanding of their responsibilities. This bill does that. For those owners who will not take their responsibilities seriously, this bill will give them some sharp reminders.

The bill is not about preventing people from owning and enjoying dogs. New Zealand has a very high rate of dog ownership, and people have kept and enjoyed dogs for generations. While most dogs are well behaved, just about any dog can be dangerous given the wrong set of circumstances. There is also a growing expectation that it is not acceptable to let dogs wander unattended, or to encourage them to act aggressively, especially when in public or around children. Increasing pressures on our public spaces mean we all need to take more care when dogs and people mix.

This bill will give councils more tools to deal with owners who need reminding of their responsibilities. Councils will now be able to classify dog owners as probationary or disqualified, depending upon the situation, rather than having to go through a probationary step first. This means that councils can more effectively deal with the serious offenders the first time, rather than waiting for them to offend again before taking action. For many owners whose dogs end up in places they should not be or cause problems, the answer is sometimes simply better education about their dog or their obligations. Councils will now be able to require such owners to attend an education programme or dog obedience course. We are also requiring councils to review their dog control policies, with greater emphasis to be put on public safety. This means, in general, dogs will need to be kept on a leash when in popular public places, especially where children are playing. Recognising the pivotal role of councils in dog control, this bill, for the first time, will create a specific obligation for all councils to report on their dog control activities in a common way. While, of course, all communities face different circumstances, this measure will help enhance accountability and provide essential core information about dog control throughout the country.

The penalty for owning a dog that causes serious injury is increased from a maximum fine of $5,000 to a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 years. This will send a very strong signal that owners must take care to make sure their dogs cannot do serious harm.

One of the few contentious proposals put forward by the bill was that of universal microchipping. I would like to thank New Zealand First and members of United Future for their support during the Committee stage to provide for progressive microchipping of all dogs. I acknowledge that some groups have doubts about microchipping. However, once microchipping is in place I believe we will very quickly see its practical benefits. I do not believe it will be an expensive exercise for dog owners. I note again that this view is also supported by the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the New Zealand Veterinary Association, and the New Zealand Kennel Club.

For 20 years our society has agonised about what to do with fighting breeds of dogs. This bill finally does something about it. People who own American pit bulls, Japanese tosas, Brazilian filas, and dogo Argentinos will have to muzzle them while they are in public. Importation of any more of these breeds will be prohibited. Judging from the letters and emails received by my office, this move has widespread public support, and I note that the Committee stage of the bill demonstrated the idea that it had universal political support in this House.

Finally, I would like to thank all of those involved in developing this bill, particularly my parliamentary colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Carolina Anderson and her family, particularly her father, John Anderson. The Anderson family has shown real courage in campaigning for better dog control. In doing so, they have turned a tragedy into a positive benefit for New Zealand society. Thank you for those efforts. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on what was the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2), which is now known as the Dog Control Amendment Bill. The National Party is supporting the main thrust of this bill, which focuses on increased owner responsibility, clamping down on irresponsible owners, and better nationwide enforcement.

However, National is absolutely against universal microchipping of dogs. We believe that a very arrogant Labour Government and a very arrogant Labour Minister—along with some somewhat sycophantic members of New Zealand First and that other party—have agreed to allow this to happen over and above the advice of the Local Government and Environment Committee. After all, the Labour Government has done nothing about dog control for 4 long years, despite this bill being on the Order Paper since 1999, and despite statistics clearly showing that over the last 10 years there have been 300 serious dog attacks per year in New Zealand, of which most are perpetrated on children and of which a large proportion are preventable. Not only that; thousands of dog attacks are recorded through the Accident Compensation Corporation, and many thousands more are not recorded at all.

Undoubtedly, the crisis that finally jolted the present Labour Government into action was caused by several serious attacks in south Auckland, and then the very awful attack on Carolina Anderson on about 31 January. I too join the Minister of Local Government in complimenting her father on the tremendous amount of work he has done to galvanise action on this bill, which will receive its final reading this afternoon. In his submission to Parliament it was pointed out that despite the owners of that dog failing to call the dog off, giving a false name, failing to come forward to the police, etc., under the present Dog Control Act they faced a maximum fine of $5,000 and 3 months in jail on the charge of possessing a dangerous dog. Clearly, in terms of the severity of what occurred, it was very inappropriate. He went on in that same submission to state: “In light of the spate of dog attacks in New Zealand, and the hideous impact this is having on many sectors of the community, but especially children, our friends and our many supporters in the community, we urge the Government to make an urgent revision to the Dog Control Act.” It was in that context that, finally, the Labour Government decided to do something.

I must say the select committee members worked well together. There was good collaboration, and most of the positive parts of the bill were worked out in a spirit of inter-party collaboration and support. However, what did emerge was that the Labour Government must have some sort of innate, predetermined genetic disposition to carry out inane, megalomaniac, centrally controlled command activities like building fences all over New Zealand and universally microchipping dogs. It just cannot help itself. The Minister of Local Government certainly falls into that category, and, undoubtedly, it seems as though he must fall into line with the Prime Minister’s commands. I noticed the other day at a function for the President of China, which was held in Auckland, that the President wore a very splendid Western-style suit, but our Prime Minister managed to deck herself out, again, in an equally magnificent brown Mao Tse-Tung – type outfit that would be the pride of any foot soldier in that socialist country.

💬 Rodney Hide: It was amazing!

It was amazing! This dog control legislation gave the Prime Minister and Chris Carter the opportunity to expand their socialist claims to include building fences all over New Zealand that would be better than the Great Wall of China. Fortunately, the good sense of the select committee finally managed to put them down on that one. However, they sprang back when it came to microchipping dogs.

I note the Minister was saying that in a few years’ time New Zealand will be glad that all our dogs are microchipped. Well, let us just have a look at what Federated Farmers said today—and their members have in the order of 150,000 working dogs. They said: “We urge you to oppose compulsory microchipping for the following reasons: no cost-benefit analysis of this proposal has been done …”. The Minister might say that, yes, a cost-benefit proposal was done; well, we saw a cost of $12 to $20 per microchip, but nothing accurate about the cost of insertion. After all, there are 500,000 dogs in New Zealand to be microchipped. It is a significant amount. Federated Farmers also say that microchipping will not prevent a single dog attack. They are absolutely right in that respect. After all, we want to prioritise what will be most effective in preventing dog attacks, and this inane effort by the Minister to universally microchip certainly will not do that. Federated Farmers also say: “This will impose an additional substantial annual cost on the owners of the 150,000 New Zealand farm working dogs for no benefit.” I absolutely agree with that.

Undoubtedly, there are some good aspects of this bill and that is why National has been supporting it. For instance, there is the duty of territorial authorities to adopt a policy on dogs, and formulate a best-practice guideline that is available to all territorial authorities—I certainly hope the Minister will take that seriously and will make a commitment to ensure that those best-practice guidelines are available—and the fact that territorial authorities must report annually on dog control policy and practice. We learnt there is considerable variation around the country in terms of the way in which dog laws are enforced. It is very important to have both best-practice guidelines and, indeed, uniform enforcement around the country. We think it is absolutely right and proper that there are increased penalties, and also that dog control officers have the right to pursue a dog on to a property after a serious attack, and even into a house in outstanding instances.

Undoubtedly, owner education, incentives for good owners, and the regulations regarding probation and disqualification are right and proper. But there is no doubt that the majority of New Zealand dog owners—as I said before, there are estimated to be 500,000 dogs in New Zealand—are responsible. The whole focus of this bill must be on zoning in, and clamping down, on those irresponsible owners, and decreasing preventable dog attacks. At the end of the day, when I go to the park with my children, or to the beach, I want them to be safe. Only the other day, when I was in Glendowie, in Mr Speaker’s electorate, with my children, I looked furtively at a very large dog whose owner had left it not properly attached to a seat in the park. I thought that if that dog gets off and goes for my children it will be an awful nightmare for me—the sort of nightmare that parents right around this country are conscious of. What we really want this bill to do is ensure that owner responsibility is encouraged. We must clamp down on irresponsible owners, and achieve universal enforcement of the law around the country.

I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. I would like to add my thanks and congratulations to those who have put such a considerable amount of time into the drafting and processing of the law and the hearing of submissions. As we all know, this issue is far from simple. As the Minister of Local Government said in his introductory comments, it is an issue that this House has ignored for some time, rather than dealing with it. It is certainly an area that has seen renewed public calls for action, so I think the community should be largely very pleased that this bill is having its third reading today.

I was one of a large number of members from all parties in the House who had the opportunity to talk to Mr Anderson when he visited us nearly a year ago to discuss the issue. Those who were present would all acknowledge that seeing the photos of his daughter certainly focuses the mind on the issue.

I am very pleased that this legislation has taken the form it has. The only disappointment for me in this debate is the irrational material that is currently being distributed by some—not all—branches of Federated Farmers. I am delighted to learn today that their own Bay of Plenty branch has come out against the more extreme statements from its head office, and is now claiming that it supports the microchipping of all animals. For those in the rural sector, it is also important that wild animals can be properly identified, and the damage they do sheeted home to those responsible. I am pleased to support this very important public safety measure.

I rise to speak in the third reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill as a sycophant. I am part of a caucus that discussed the issue robustly several times, and, might I say in reference to the previous comment, with some expertise on farming matters. I myself have expertise not only with regard to dairy farming but also dog breeding. We brought quite a number of informed members and informed comment to our thinking on this bill. However, if we are sycophants in the minds of other parties on our right, then so be it. I am not about to change their thinking.

However, I do want to say that this bill could have been titled differently. It could have been titled the “Dog Control and Dog Administration Amendment Bill”. If it had been, then some of the attendant issues that are with us today might not have caused so much recent concern. The focus of material on my desk, and my emails, has been solely upon the issue of whether this legislation would prevent aggressive dog attacks. To my mind and to the committee's mind, that obviously was an issue. Obviously, it was an issue in the 1990s, causing a decade of work from 1991 to the present with regard to dogs, and dog control.

However, the other issues that go with that, such as the role of councils, dog rangers, enforcement officers, dog owners, dog breeders, and veterinarians, who are attendant on the dog industry, are also matters that form the components of this legislation, either in a major or minor part. Therefore, it is just a wee bit unfortunate that so much attention has been placed upon control. The overall intention of the committee was to find an appropriate balance between the rights of dog owners and the right of everyone in the community to feel safe in the presence of dogs.

I believe that the committee reached a very sound, common-sense approach to the problem. It may be that the Minister’s opening comments at the start of the year, showing the extent of his concern, were perhaps a bit draconian. But that was understandable against the background of the issues that were with us over the Christmas break—and, by the way, since then. However, in the submissions made to the select committee, we have advanced in very quick time. The Minister can take credit for what, in my short time in the House, has been a very, very speedy response from the start of the year, to submissions, to deliberation, and now we are in the final stage of legislation, that on 1 December will be law, resulting from those submissions that were made at the time.

The framework, as I said, was related to aggressive attacks, injuries, and death in the case of some earlier attacks, and more recently this year, focus upon a death at Ruakaka. So the issue of dog control became too coloured with the aggressiveness of dogs, rather than looking at the whole issue of how dog–related matters were administered in the community, how registration was provided for, and more recently, the actual cost of that registration, particularly because most councils have—and we applaud that—a user-pays policy. Most of the dog control issues in councils are controlled by the ability of responsible dog owners to pay for the total services of councils. I suggested the other day that in the very near future there may be a common-good factor that should come from rates, for a time at least, if the community is going to be so concerned about dogs in our society, and particularly with regard to the time to implement a proper and appropriate process in regard to microchipping. But that is for councils to decide.

The Local Government and Environment Committee response, as I said, was basically one of common sense. I therefore just want to take us through one aspect that has been covered, and that is the aspect of microchipping. The committee found at the time that although there was not, perhaps, a case for universal microchipping, there certainly was a case to take a segment of those dogs that were classified as dangerous, menacing, and impounded, to be microchipped. That was the committee’s mind. We also heard from submitters who did support the compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Why? They supported that because of the attacks upon livestock, and other issues. I was very fortunate to have been a principal of a school with an outstanding dairy and sheep farm for some years. The record that we had for 2 months, and this was 5 years ago, was 23 dogs shot on our farm for worrying sheep—a loss of almost 80 lambs and ewes. That is a huge cost. That sort of experience was also relayed to us by one of the submitters at the committee. He came from the Opotiki district, and was a former chairman of the county council. He had worked in that district over some years to see whether microchipping was feasible.

The veterinary society in that district worked with him and they took advice from Australia, particularly from the two states where this measure is working. They arrived at our committee in no doubt that microchipping was an answer in the rural sector. It is not the answer to dog control in the sense of aggressive attacks, but it certainly is a very, very feasible answer with regard to registration. New Zealand First’s submission stated, and I still believe, that it is possible that the collar measure could be replaced by the chip. But that is a matter that is obviously for local authorities, the Minister, and the Department of Internal Affairs to decide.

Microchipping is a pragmatic issue. There is a time factor—1 July 2006. There is a long lead-time to get the technology right, to improve on the method used in Australia, and the technology used in the veterinary clinics of this country. Microchipping is also, as we have already heard in earlier stages of the legislation, an issue that needs to be faced with regard to a very credible ISO base. I want to plead again with the Minister and the department that the issue of a distant scanner will become a very, very important issue if this is to come into operation in 2006.

The last issue in respect of microchipping is this. I have heard comments about microchipping, as have other members of this House; the issue is quite simple. Unless one’s dog is born before 1 July 2006, one is not affected. I have been quite amazed by some of the emails I have had, and comments made in the last couple of days, about the fear in the community. But there is no need for fear; this is a considered measure by the Minister and his department. We support the ability, in a pragmatic way, for the Minister to develop this matter, which, as I have said, is supported by a considerable number in the rural community. I was at the Waimate North show on Saturday. I spoke to farmers there. Not one of the farmers I spoke to echoed the comments made in the emails from various branches of Federated Farmers.

In conclusion, this bill sets out higher penalties with regard to infringement offences and fees, and it sets out more strenuous requirements with regard to the ability of enforcement officers to act. But above all, the bill leaves with territorial local councils the discretion as to how this measure should be implemented, and allows, in the graduated strength of their bylaws, for discretion at almost every point. The audit of councils’ annual plans is included for the first time, and that will be easily achieved because the policies that the councils have with regard to dog control will be very clearly enunciated in their annual plans.

Above all, I wish the Minister and his department well. There is the issue of microchipping, which is yet to be firmed up in the public’s mind, but it is worth a go, and I commend the bill to the House.

Dog attacks are dreadful and it is totally reasonable for people to seek action from Parliament to make sure that all that can be done is done. But it needs to be pointed out that most attacks are by dogs that are known by the people who are attacked, and attacks on strangers happen not because of inadequate law but because of law ignored or law inadequately enforced. I commend David Parker and members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. If a bill like this can be enjoyable, the experience of working with people in a cooperative fashion is an enjoyable experience, and there was a great deal of cooperation in this committee.

Good law reflects and supports good behaviour. This law is a mixture of carrot and stick, of incentive and disincentive. The messages that came through loud and clear from the submissions was that overwhelmingly the majority of the 500,000 dogs in New Zealand are unlikely to offend. They are owned and cared for by responsible dog owners. This legislation has been tempered by the need to ensure that members of the public are kept safe from dangerous and menacing dogs by ensuring that they are muzzled, neutered, and kept on a lead or behind a fence, and to do this without penalising the good dogs and the responsible dog owners.

There is the possibility of incentives by way of reduced registration fees for owners who can demonstrate that they know how to look after their dogs—that is, by attending puppy school, going to a dog obedience classes with their dogs, and so on. The ability to prevent irresponsible dog owners from keeping dogs for up to 5 years is strengthened. This is not a new requirement. Reports that the owners of the dog that attacked Carolina Anderson have been observed since their conviction with a dog on the same reserve where the attack occurred suggests that some local authorities need to enforce more rigorously the bans on owning dogs. The reporting procedures for local authorities will hopefully ensure that they are more likely to enforce the provisions knowing that they are more readily able to be held accountable.

I mentioned earlier that the bill has been tempered by the need to protect against dangerous dogs without penalising the good dogs or the responsible dog owners. There are two areas in the bill where we believe that measures most certainly do, or in some cases could, catch the responsible along with the irresponsible. The first is in the case of breed-specific bans. The Green Party has no issue with bans on dogo Argentino or the Japanese tosa, or the Brazilian fila. These dogs are so few in number that neutering and the ban on imports is likely to ensure that they are unlikely to be a problem and will not be here for very much longer, if there are any here. We are concerned that the ban includes American pit bull terriers—a breed that is notoriously difficult to identify, and, indeed, the description of the pit bull terrier that is included in the bill shows that the size differential is such that if applied to other breeds it could see judges confusing cocker spaniels with Afghans or springer spaniels. The size differential is huge.

We are afraid that the ban is likely to undermine the reasonable caution that should be exercised around all dogs, or that it will create unnecessary fear around some breeds that bear some resemblance to pit bull terriers, like Staffordshire bull terriers, which have a reputation for being pussy cats. We have been comforted by the indication from the Minister that the criteria for adding new breeds to the banned list will be rigorously applied and that a single attack by one of a breed will not result in muzzling, and so on, on all specimens of that breed. We recognise that the inclusion of the American pit bull terrier reflects a concern about a range of dogs bred for fighting, but we believe that these dogs are likely to be caught by the provisions on dangerous and menacing dogs.

Our deeper concern, however, is over the issue of microchipping of all dogs. The committee carefully considered all of the submissions, but in particular those of the local authorities, and decided “Yes” to microchipping dangerous dogs, menacing dogs, problem dogs, and dogs that had been impounded for a second time; and “Yes” to allowing individual local authorities to microchip all dogs if they believed that that would best meet their needs. The Greens’ attempt to add hunting dogs to the list of chipped dogs, so that the owners of escaped hunting dogs could be held responsible for attacks on farm animals and wildlife, was not supported by the committee. Those dogs will now be chipped. We hope hunters who lose their dogs will be more diligent in their efforts to recover them.

We were disappointed that the Minister was unwilling to isolate the Supplementary Order Paper amendments that related to microchipping from the others in Part 5. It was a measure of my inexperience that I did not vote against all of the Supplementary Order Paper amendments for that part of the bill. It made little difference to the outcome. Clearly, New Zealand First had indicated its willingness to support the Government.

We remain unconvinced of the necessity for microchipping the 450,000 dogs that are unlikely to bite or cause a problem, in order to catch, or protect against, the 50,000 dogs that may. While the cost of chipping all dogs registered after 2006 is nowhere near approaching the figures that some have suggested recently, there can be little justification for doing that, whatever the price, in the light of the deeply held concern by many responsible dog owners, since chipping will serve no useful purpose for most people or their dogs. The Minister said that the chipping is necessary for the national register. Clearly, current registration details will be entered into the national register. As it is likely to be some time beyond 2016 before all dogs in New Zealand are chipped, a national register is perfectly viable without compulsory chipping.

The same arguments hold true for the viability of purchasing equipment for the identifying of microchips. If local authorities believe it is necessary to chip all dogs to make their equipment viable, then they are able to make that decision for themselves. The committee suggested that that was OK. Clearly, many do not think it is necessary. In view of the likelihood that most dogs will never come to the notice of dog control officers, and hence never have the transponders run over them, the measure is likely to undermine support for legislation that demands wholehearted buy-in from all dog owners.

While the legislation strengthens the power of local authorities and dog control officers, the measures to encourage dog owners to learn how to manage their pets in ways that minimise their risks will help to reduce those risks. Providing public education on what to do and what not to do around dogs will also help people, but children in particular, to keep themselves safe.

The committee were accused—as politicians frequently are—of not listening. The changes to the fencing provisions are a testimony to the fact that the committee heard the many submitters.

This is not a bad piece of law. There are bits of it we disagree with, but it is our fervent wish that it does keep New Zealanders safe. It recognises, too, that for many people, dogs are their only companion, and for all dog owners are a very important part of their families. This law seeks to protect against dangerous dogs, but recognises the importance of dogs in the lives of many New Zealanders, and we support it.

We in ACT believe that this is bad legislation and we will oppose it. It is legislation that has been driven by reaction and by emotion rather than cool thought. I have to say that the Minister is particularly guilty of over-reacting and bringing to this House very bad legislation. We have a parallel situation with gun registration, in that this Government has simmering away a proposal to register all firearms. We know that it does not work. We know from the experience all around the world that it does not work.

I put it to members that the Government is just waiting for another unfortunate incident, such as a tragedy like the one at Aramoana or Raurimu—the Dunblane equivalent—and then it will rush legislation in, riding it through on a wave of public outrage and emotion. That is exactly what happened with this dog control legislation. It was on the legislative programme, simmering away on the backburner. We had a spate of very unfortunate incidents that were absolute tragedies in themselves, but this Government went to the lowest common denominator and brought in sweeping legislation.

That is the point. It goes to the philosophical divide. Government members believe in big government and they believe in control. They believe in more regulation at every opportunity, with the State increasingly telling people, families, and communities how they should live their lives. They do not respect freedoms. They do not respect personal responsibility. This legislation is right up there in terms of that philosophical divide. This legislation represents big government, big control, and prescriptive law.

We know that about 300 serious dog attacks occur every year in New Zealand. That is bad, and we certainly should be working to reduce that incidence. However, with a population of 4 million people and about half a million dogs, it is not surprising. Domesticated canines have been living with people for 100,000 years—we have evolved together in many respects. Comments have been made about the incredible bond between man and dog. The comfort and security and enjoyment that many people get from their dogs is part of being human, actually—and there is 100,000 years of evolution backing it.

With this bill we have the State stepping in with incredible controls. In some of the measures first proposed by the Minister, every property was going to have to be fenced from the street right to either the front door or the back door. Even people on rural farms with homes 500 metres from the street were somehow going to have to have a narrow fence-way to protect anyone who might want to come along with registered mail and knock on their door. What a silly, silly Minister! He lost that one at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was a member of that select committee, and I concur with other colleagues—the committee was a cooperative one, and we did some good work. The bill is significantly better than it was, but that still does not make it good.

The bill the Minister brought to Parliament was a shocker. It was atrocious. It was one of the most appalling pieces of State-control legislation that I have ever seen come before Parliament. So we had the nonsense of the “build the fences” situation, and then the issue of microchipping. All the evidence was against microchipping. It did not make a lot of sense. Apart from that, the cost is phenomenal. I heard the Minister on the wireless this morning trying to excuse it away. He said it would not be $70 or $100; it would be very cheap and efficient. He told us that his Department of Conservation put little microchips into kiwis, and it does so very cheaply. The fact is that the chip costs between $12 and $20—that is established, and I do not think anyone disputes it. To engage the services of a veterinary scientist, we would be talking about—[Interruption] Many will. Fifty dollars to microchip an animal would be a reasonable price. With half a million dogs in the country, that is $25 million of dead-weight cost that this Government—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What’s a decimal place between friends!

OK, even if the amount is $2.5 million, that is still a lot of money. It is dead-weight cost. It does not produce any wealth. It does not give anybody greater security. It is just dead-weight cost from the bureaucrats, from the regulators, and from the State controllers.

The other point is the breed-specific nonsense. Again, all the evidence from around the world is that breed-specific selection for dogs is a nonsense and does not work. Successive Governments in this country have rejected it on that basis. But, oh no, this Minister and this Labour Cabinet could not resist it. Here was a vehicle of control. They were going to seize upon it and legislate for it. United Future has already made some very good points about the American pit bull breed. One cannot distinguish between them. One cannot breed select, and the Minister has been unable to convince anyone of how it will happen. It is against any advice he was received, and that is very, very unfortunate.

Some things in the select committee were very humorous. The Minister with his definition of working dogs in his original legislation had not even excluded farm dogs, and there was a requirement that all dogs that were not working dogs would have to be on leashes. The only working dogs were to be those that worked with the Customs Service, the police, and the Army. All working dogs connected with Government departments were given an exemption, but the poor old farmer with a mob of sheep out on the road in Canterbury somewhere would have to put all his sheepdogs on leashes. That would have been a very interesting exercise in itself, but that is the sort of nonsense this Minister and the Labour Cabinet bring to the country.

But we still have in this legislation at its third reading stage—at a point where it is about to pass into law—the statement that a dog owned by a person and known to have attacked any person, or any stock or poultry, or property of any kind, from here on in must not be allowed to be at large, or at any public place or private way, except when confined completely within a vehicle or cage, or muzzled and controlled on a leash. It states: “to have attacked … property of any kind”. How many members in this House have reared a puppy? How many can say that a puppy has chewed a shoe? A shoe is “property of any kind”. So an innocent little puppy may chew up a shoe, as a puppy is wont to do, and be in breach of this legislation. It will have to be on a leash and muzzled.

That is extraordinary legislation, and it is a recipe for increasing social conflict and pitting neighbour against neighbour. This legislation can be used by malicious and vindictive people to get at their neighbours who might have a puppy or a dog next door. It is bad legislation. It is foolish legislation. ACT will not be supporting it. On behalf of all dog owners and all sensible, rational people who still have common sense in this country, we say that this is bad legislation and that we are against it.

First, I commend the Minister of Local Government for bringing what has become, I believe, very good legislation back to the House. He is to be commended for that. I also thank David Carter, who chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee, and all the other members of the committee for the very cooperative way in which we have worked. The officials also need to be thanked for their work in making a great many amendments to the original legislation before us, including some of the major changes made at the last minute in the Committee stage.

When I first began on this process, earlier in the year, some colleagues advised me that dealing with dog legislation is always a lose-lose situation, so I embarked on it with some fear and trepidation. It is very difficult, when one is dealing with people’s pets, to come up with legislation that will please everybody, but I believe we have done an excellent job. Most of the feedback we have received so far has been very positive. People have been very pleased that parts of the bill have been taken out, and that a large number of amendments have been made to the Act that will make it even more effective.

I begin by concentrating on some of the positive initiatives in the bill. First of all, we give increased powers to dog control officers for enforcement and for education. That is very important. The dog control officers are the front-line people dealing with dogs in our communities, and they need to be supported with good legislation and more powers, so that they can do their jobs effectively. This bill allows them to go on to private property to apprehend misbehaving dogs, which is an important step forward. It also gives them powers to provide food and shelter for dogs that have not been taken care of, and I think all of us are pleased with that provision. We have retained the probationary owner category, so that dog control officers can work with offenders to help them learn to be better owners. I believe that most of our dog control officers are working positively with people and helping them to become better owners, rather than penalising them unnecessarily. Probationary training will be mandatory under this legislation, which is a good step forward.

There will be much tougher penalties for offences against the Act, and real and workable infringement fees. The national database for tracking all dogs will be a real asset in the tool bag of our dog control officers. It will ensure that dogs with dangerous histories are not lost from the records if they travel between regions, and we welcome that addition to this legislation. There will also be better public safety, which is the primary focus of the legislation. Tough new public safety criteria for council by-laws will result, in many communities, in dogs being required to be leashed in publicly frequented places, particularly children’s and family areas. I am pleased, though, that we did not take the position of requiring all dogs to be leashed at all times. Councils, in particular, approached us and asked us to leave it up to them to decide. We found, I think, a reasonable and common-sense compromise in requiring people to carry a leash with them.

Councils are now to be accountable for their enforcement of dog control laws. We have given them the tools. It is now up to them to make sure their neighbourhoods are safe. One of the important features of the legislation, too, is that councils must report on an annual basis regarding what they are doing in their communities to enforce the legislation. That makes them accountable not just to central government but to their local communities, because individuals in the community will be able to monitor what their dog control officers are doing. That is the key to the success of the legislation.

There is a new category of “menacing dogs” for dogs displaying threatening behaviour, or dog breeds or types of the schedule 4 variety that need to be muzzled in public. I believe that is not too onerous a condition to place upon dogs that we know are capable of inflicting serious injury on people if they attack. As I have said in other speeches, it is not like some overseas legislation, such as that in England, under which one is banned from owning a dog of a particular breed. It simply means that people will have to muzzle those dogs when they take them out in public. Those four classes of dog that are inherently dangerous are banned from importation, and that is a sensible step. We do not want to see those other three breeds—which could cross-breed and become a problem—follow the example of what has happened with the American pit bull.

We have reasonably strengthened the fencing provisions, without going to the length of the ludicrous requirement to have fencing to the front door, as was in the original bill. People should have the assurance that they can pass by other people’s properties without having dogs come out on to the street. Even if those dogs do not attack, it can be a very nerve-racking and frightening experience, and the requirement that councils can place upon people to fence their properties will be useful in that regard.

All dogs are capable of being man’s best friend, although I personally prefer to have a wife in that regard. Whether they are small or large dogs, people can become very attached to dogs as pets. If, as a result of the passing of this legislation, there is a trend over time for people to shift away from the American pit bull – type dog and the larger, attack-type dog, and begin to choose something a little less aggressive as a family pet, then the legislation will have been doing its job in that regard, also. The point that needs to be made—which the speaker before me missed—is that, when it comes to American pit bulls, dog control officers do not have to identify the breed. We understood that that is difficult. That is why we have allowed for a category of “type of dog”, which makes it much easier. If it looks like a pit bull—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Smells like a pit bull.

—and if it smells like a pit bull, it will probably bite like a pit bull. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the owners of the dog to muzzle it when they take it out in public.

Some initiatives in the bill that United Future takes particular pleasure in are that, firstly, there will be a national database from 2006. It will be not just for microchipped dogs but for all dogs that have been registered, because that will be useful for dog control officers, as I have said before. Secondly, irresponsible owners convicted of offences and given destruction orders under the Act will have to provide death certificates to prove their dogs are deceased—not just hidden away or loaned out temporarily. I am told by dog control officers that that is a real problem. An owner is given a destruction order, and the officer going to look for the dog is told the owner has taken the dog into the bush and shot it, but in actual fact the dog appears in another municipality or community somewhere else, and still is a problem. Territorial authorities will have the power to impound dogs charged for dangerous offences, while their owners await prosecution proceedings. That, I believe, is an important improvement to the 1996 Act, because it will keep dangerous dogs off the streets while that prosecution is going on. As I said earlier, the audit process has become compulsory for councils, and will add great weight to the responsibility of councils, or great motivation for councils, to enforce this law effectively.

I want to make some final comments about the issue of microchipping and what costs that will bring to dog owners. It has been suggested in some press releases in the last couple of days that a registry would result in costs of something like $25 million. I just cannot believe that. Research into that issue was done very carefully. One of the things the microchip registry was compared with was the national vehicle registry, and it was claimed that it cost $25 per vehicle to maintain a registry on an annual basis. So I asked our researchers to look into that, and they found that it cost $24.8 million for the Land Transport Safety Authority to maintain its database. Considering that the cost is spread across our country’s 2.9 million vehicles, and that most vehicles are registered twice a year, the cost would really amount to $4 per vehicle per registration. To suggest that the cost is $25 is stretching the truth considerably.

The estimates regarding the cost to owners of microchipping dogs are also incorrect. They include the assumption that vets would be the only ones to install the microchips, and we have made it very clear to the Minister, in our support for the legislation, that installation of them must be open for competitive pricing. Dog control officers can do it and private contractors will also be able to be engaged, to make sure no one has a monopoly on installing the chips, and therefore keeps the price very high. It seems reasonable that, when taking a pup at age 3 months for its vaccination, the chip could also be implanted then, if the owner wanted a vet to do it, and that would not mean an additional or separate consultation fee.

I commend this bill to the House.