Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3)

The debate is on Part 2, clauses 6 to 20A, including debate on schedule 1AA.

These 25 clauses in Part 2 deal with the Dog Control Act, and it is somewhat amazing that only 12 months after the Minister put through changes in the dog control legislation, Parliament is dealing with not one mistake, two mistakes, or three mistakes, but 25 areas in which we are having to rewrite this Minister’s legislation. Earlier in the debate the Minister said: “It is not my fault. It is all Sandra Lee’s. That is why there was a mess with the local government law.” Well, the Minister cannot pass the buck in respect of the Dog Control Act. It was entirely this Minister’s doing.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: That’s right.

Well, the Minister pleads guilty. I would like to know from the Minister, for legislation that has been in force for only—

💬 Government Member: No, that’s the guilty member—before the court.

Well, it is the Government’s dirty work, and it wants to relitigate that. It did not have the courage when I offered a by-election in Nelson. It did not want to contest. It was quite happy to have the argument in the High Court, but did not want to have the debate with the people of Nelson. Those are the sorts of wimps on the Government benches.

But this is a Minister who has pleaded guilty to having the—

💬 Government Member: Who was challenging the decision?

Sorry—what does the Minister want to talk about? Does he want to debate family law? Does the member want to debate family law?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the member losing his hearing?

Does the member want to have a debate about family law? I would be delighted to have a debate about family law, and the huge changes the Government has now conceded should be made in that area, and it is nice to know that one can win an argument.

I want to talk about the—[Interruption] What a pathetic bunch on the Government benches. This is a law to do with dog control, and they want to interject about everything else but the legislation. The 25 clauses of this part make a whole series—[Interruption] Do I have to put up with this crap, Mr Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, the member does not. I am warning those who are interjecting that if they interject again they will be out of this Chamber.

The provisions in these 25 clauses are a patch-up job on the dog control legislation that the Minister advanced, and there are a number of things that National disagrees with.

The first of those is with regard to the compulsory microchipping of dogs. As my colleague Phil Heatley pointed out earlier in the debate, what sort of control freaks are there in the Government that they want to have every single dog in New Zealand microchipped? That is the policy being advanced by Chris Carter. It is a huge expense for the ratepayers and dog owners of New Zealand. It is not a good policy move, and we think the Minister should admit that—as with so many other things he has got wrong—the provision should be changed.

The second area I want to challenge the Minister on is why, within 12 months of prescribing fines for dog offences, the Government has to change them, and, third, why the Government is not prepared to trust local councils to determine the appropriate fines for dog offences. Why is it necessary for this Parliament to prescribe the fines that should apply in dog-related offences up and down New Zealand? Surely it is enough for Parliament simply to say: “Look, your council can set fines up to 1,000 bucks. You describe the offences. You apply the fines at the level at which you think they are going to be the most effective enforcement tools in your particular area.”, rather than have schedule 4 in this bill, which sets out every individual fine that will be provided. I just think it is so rich for the Government to rave on all the time, particularly this Minister: “We trust councils. We believe in the power of general competence.” Councils can best judge for their communities. But when it comes to setting fines over something as small as dog control, we say it is unnecessary to have to prescribe that in Parliament. We say it should not be done, and we oppose that provision. The last question I have for the Minister is, do we have any definitive figures yet as to what it will cost the average dog owner with regard to the Minister’s mad plan of microchipping every dog in New Zealand? We were given widely varying figures at the select committee. I think that before Parliament makes a decision, we need to know the cost.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Before I go to the next speaker, I have been reflecting and I think that I was a little harsh earlier on. Of course interjections are accepted; they put a bit of life into the Chamber. Certainly, if a speaker says anything that is controversial, then another member is fully entitled to interject, and I expect members to be reasonable.

In speaking to Part 2, I reiterate what I said in the debate on the second reading—that New Zealand First supports microchipping. If the members who have spoken so far about microchipping had any understanding of the rural economy and farming, and the way in which these trends are developing in farming, given the legislation that was passed earlier today—tracking, for the dairy farmer, from the shed to the consumer—then they would understand why microchipping will come, in time.

Secondly, in respect of clause 15, the fact is that the bill does not provide for microchipping to take effect from tomorrow. It allows local authorities an adequate time-span to allow for the contracts and for the process to be put in place. It takes into account puppies yet to be born and allows for them to be microchipped in sequence. I am absolutely certain, from the Local Government and Environment Committee’s experience of submissions made last year by such rural councils as the Ōpōtiki District Council, which has worked with this over some years, and from the advice given to the committee by veterinarians and other vet groups, that the process can take place and will be able to be achieved by contract at a reasonable rate.

The issue is really whether those who own a dog realise what it means. In doing some brief calling around and speaking to councils about Part 2, I went to the Waitakere City Council and I saw there a few words in the council’s draft policy statement that I will pass on to the Committee. That draft statement starts with an excellent comment, which puts us into the context of what we are talking about. First of all, it asserts: “It is a privilege to be able to own a dog. Dog control problems are a symptom of community, social and individual people problems. The impact of a dog on others is determined by the owner of the dog. To be a successful owner, any dog owner must take a daily and active interest in the welfare of the dog with attention given to the physical, emotional, and mental needs of the dog.”, and so on. It is a long, elaborate, and very carefully drawn up policy. The last bullet points of the draft foreword again assert: “It is in the interests of the community that Council’s Animal Welfare Officers maintain interaction with dog owners.” and “The ownership of a dog brings with it a twenty four hour a day, seven day per week social responsibility towards other people (including their property and animals) and towards the dog itself.” If one begins with a sound dog policy, as other councils have, and puts the amendments to the Act in this bill in context, it makes sound and reliable sense.

To come back to the issue of microchipping, it is the way of the future with regard to tracking and identifying animals. The microchipping of dogs is part of the sequence. The whole of our primary produce is dependent upon what overseas markets deem to be so, not necessarily what we would wish to be so, and the rural community understands, more than most, what tracking of animals means in terms of that community’s livelihood. New Zealand First commends this part of the bill.

We heard a lot of rhetoric from Dr Nick Smith, the MP from Nelson—of course, much of it was nonsense and simply distorted the realities of what this legislation stands for and represents. For example, he posed the question—and I guess it must have been rhetorical—about why we should not allow councils to set their own fines. Actually, he should know that the law does not provide the ability to do that, at all. The Ministry of Justice is looking at that process, but at the moment the law as it stands provides for a set fine, a threshold, and that is it.

When I surveyed local governments in New Zealand a year ago asking them whether they thought that current dog legislation was adequate to deal with public safety, the overwhelming response I got from the 76 councils that deal with this issue was that it was not; that the fines are too low. I listened. I fixed it up.

Dr Nick Smith also asked why we have compulsory microchipping. Mr Jim Peters explained it very well. Another thing was revealed when I surveyed councils about what records they kept about dog attacks. What I discovered is that some kept records and some did not. There was no consistent record-keeping anywhere in the country. There was no ability for a council to track a dangerous dog. If somebody from Whangarei has a dangerous dog up there that is a menace and attacks people, and it moves with its owner to Manukau City, or wherever, the local council has no way of tapping in and finding out what the record and history of that dog is. I can hear one or two members in the Opposition sniggering away. Having a child's face ripped off by a dog in a park is not something to snigger about.

That has been a very draconian change to the dog legislation in New Zealand to deal with that very issue—the issue of public safety. It was a very comprehensive change; right from the microchipping issue, to entry and seizure provisions, to dealing with fines, to banning certain breeds. It was a very big piece of legislation. There were some technical issues that had to be sorted through—issues that revealed themselves as councils put this law into practice.

This is a Government that listens. We engage with animal control officers. We engage with local government to see how effective the new law is. There are, indeed, a number of changes that need to be made to the law—most of them very minor, and some of them a little bit more significant. They are all designed to make the law work better in order to keep the public safer.

I am pleased the Minister acknowledged that it was somewhat draconian to introduce a dog control law whereby every dog in New Zealand is microchipped, regardless of its owner, regardless of what threat it could be to anyone, regardless of its history—regardless of anything. Because it is draconian, and it just makes me a little sad, I guess, when one considers that grandma cannot now keep a dog as company as, perhaps, some comfort should her husband die. It is sad to me that I cannot now go and buy a little puppy for my 3-year-old and my 4-year-old without them being served with papers to fill in, lots of boxes to tick, and heaps of compliance costs.

I consider that my two little blondies—one aged 3 and one aged 4, gorgeous little kids, more like their mother, granted, than their father—would love to have a little puppy this Christmas. Unfortunately, because of this Minister and of what he acknowledges are his draconian laws, I see in this bill that my little boy will be faced with the following: he will be faced with the power of a dog control officer or dog ranger to feed and shelter his little dog. My little boy will be classified as an owner, and the territorial authority, the district council, may require my little boy to undertake some sort of training. Gee! He just got a puppy for Christmas and he has to undertake some training!

There will be the obligation on him to dispose of the dog if it is unregistered, and my 4-year-old would be disqualified as an owner. Under clause 11A he now will have to maintain records and provide information that affects the classification of his dog as to whether it is dangerous. The territorial authority, the district council, may visit our place on 26 December, the day after Christmas, and ask for Bryn. The 4-year-old will come to the door and the dog control officer will say: “We want to classify your dog as menacing. What breed is it? Is it a breed that is menacing? We are deciding.” The dog will have to be registered, of course—we do not oppose that—and my boy will have to supply register information. There will be a national dog control information database that may contain additional information about my son. The microchip transponder must be implanted in my son’s little puppy. And on it goes.

I am just pointing out the absurdity of not targeting dangerous breeds, menacing dogs with a particular history, and dogs that belong to owners like gang members and are trained only to fight, kill, and attack other dogs and, perhaps, other people. Rather, this legislation targets grandma with her poodle and my 4-year-old son with his little Labrador puppy. I point out to the House the absurdity of that. I am sure that when the country faces the fact and wakes up one morning and realises that this law or laws associated with it have come into effect, and that hundreds of thousands of people will have to microchip their dogs, the absurdity of it will not be beyond the comprehension of most sensible New Zealanders. That idea should be challenged.

I will take a short call, as I am sitting in for Mr Shirley on this bill. I could not help but be bewildered by the comments of the Minister when he said, as I recall—and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that councils have no records of dog attacks. Why should the Minister be surprised at that? Why should a regional or district council have those sorts of figures—on dog bites, for example? And what is the difference between a dog bite and a dog attack? I have not heard that explained. Let me explain this to the Minister: I have been bitten numerous times by dogs, but I have not been attacked by a dog. If a dog is caught up in a barbed wire fence, for example, and its leg is about to snap, the instinctive reaction is to reach in, grab the dog, and relieve the pressure on that leg. Of course, the dog will fasten its jaws on one’s hand or anything else that it can get at, thinking that that is how the harm is being caused. That is quite a different situation from a dog attack. That is a dog bite as distinct from a dog attack, yet there appears to be little or no understanding of that point by the Minister. I am sure the Minister for ACC could have told the Minister for Local Government—had he spoken to her—as Federated Farmers have told me, that there has been, as I recall, something less than $1,800 paid out in accident compensation for people who have been attacked by a dog. So the real issue is: where is the problem? For the Minister to say that young Carolina’s horrific injuries—and we do not want to minimise that appalling attack in any way—are indicative of every dog bite or attack is quite wrong.

I would also ask the Minister this. Since this legislation has come through and was passed some months ago, to my knowledge at least four children have needed hospitalisation after attacks by dogs, so how has microchipping stopped those dogs attacking children? The reality is that it has not, and it never will. This is just a politically correct piece of nonsense by this Government, to look as though it is doing something about a problem that it really has no intention of addressing. As one of my colleagues in the House said, the issue is about the really dangerous dogs—the pit bull terriers, and so on. If the Government really wants to address that issue, it should ban them. It should send the dog control officers out to shoot every one of those dogs. Let the Government get rid of those breeds if it is actually serious about dog attacks. But the nonsense of having to microchip farm dogs who offer absolutely no threat to the public is just ludicrous.

That is all I need or wish to say on this particular issue at this time, but I wish that the Minister would understand the extent of the problem before rushing into legislation. That is something we have come to expect from a Government that understands nothing more than political correctness.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to.