Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Got that right. Thank you.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: It’s all downhill from here.

I think it’s the first time I have.

I want to start my contribution tonight by thanking the select committee, under the interesting chairmanship of David Bennett—I know he’s been called a couple of other things already tonight—for the manner in which they considered this bill. I also wanted to thank the Department of Internal Affairs and their staff for the way they contributed to it as well.

Interestingly, four members of the select committee who considered this bill were part of the highly skilled but unsuccessful New Zealand cricket team that attended the parliamentary world cup in England earlier in the year. And, of course, we spent quite a bit of time on that little adventure talking about this extremely important bill.

This bill was referred to the select committee on 5 September 2018, so it really shows how time can march on with pieces of legislation and shows what a time consuming process it can be to get legislation to the post, well, even to a second reading. We received 13 submissions from a variety of individuals and councils, particularly, and other organisations whom this bill will particularly affect. And, of course, it does particularly affect councils as they are responsible for the majority of the animal controls activities in New Zealand. This dog control, of course, comes under animal control in most councils’ business plans.

There were three main premises of this bill: to ease the workload of the courts; to ease the time dogs spend in the pound, or what you might term the “dog prison”, and, effectively, it enables them to get out quicker; and, to make it easier, quicker, and cheaper for councils and errant dog owners to process these cases and come to a satisfactory outcome. In other words, it takes cases—I was going to say frivolous; they’re not frivolous at all—out of the courts and it allows JPs to deal with them, which, effectively, frees up court time. That’s one important factor of this.

The second thing I mentioned before was that it eases the time dogs spend in the pound, or wherever else they might be kept, when they are, effectively, taken into custodial care by the councils or dog control officers. They’re taken in for various reasons—some of those reasons which don’t apply to this bill. In fact, things like violent attacks on people and those more serious offences are not affected by this bill. They generally either lead to a dog being put down or can even end with a dog owner going to prison.

So the bill, effectively, allows JPs to hear and resolve these cases, which I think is positive. There are not a lot of cases heard or dealt with in this area, but, none the less, every case we can take out of the court frees up court time and makes a difference.

I just wanted to go back to the issue of dogs and the fact that they are kept or captured, I guess, or handed in for various reasons and kept in the pound until such time as their cases are resolved. One way or the other, they can lead to a charge. If they lead to a charge, they eventually can end up in this situation, so, in other words, they become a category 1 charge, and that’s how they end up going through this process that’s described in this bill.

There are dog owners and dog owners. There are good dog owners and bad dog owners. There are also good dogs and not such good dogs. I think most dogs, though, are the product of their owner. So the misdemeanours that occur as part of this legislation are clearly the problem the dog owners should face, not the dog. Often the dog becomes the victim of it, unfortunately. There are, however, some breeds of dogs which I don’t think should be allowed to exist in New Zealand, or certainly not as pets, and they certainly aren’t covered by this piece of legislation.

During the course of the submission process, we heard from Federated Farmers, and I guess the significance of Federated Farmers is that their members are probably the largest dog owners in New Zealand, with a large number of working dogs, playing their part in the agricultural scene in New Zealand. A lot of councils have differential charging regimes for dogs and for dog licensing, and working dogs certainly have a different charging rate in most regimes, but the owner of those dogs has got to be what they call an approved owner. So, in other words, if you’re an approved owner and you are known to, or can prove that, you look after your dogs well, that you maintain them, and that you manage the dogs well, you’re liable to become an approved owner—or there will be other descriptions in other councils—and, as such, you’ll end up with a discounted registration rate, for example. Most of those people are not the people that this bill deals with, because, generally, they will look after those dogs to an extent that they never need to become wards of the State, you might say, or part of this process.

We also heard, during the course of the submissions, from the justices of the peace and from one or two individual justices of the peace. I think most of our MPs will deal with many, many justices of the peace, because one of our unusual roles, I suppose—well, I find a slightly unusual—is, in fact, to appoint the justices of the peace in our electorates, or we’re part of the appointment. We’re part of the nomination process, I suppose you would say. I’ve been hugely impressed, in my time as a member of Parliament, in the number of people who give a lot of time acting as justices of the peace in our community. Not only do they give a lot of time, but I was a justice of the peace myself for a little while—I didn’t carry on with that, because I’m not that kind of disciplined person that can deal with things properly—and the training that they go through now, compared to the training that I went through when I became a justice of the peace, which was non-existent, basically, is significant.

So I think we can have absolute confidence that those people are very capable of playing their part in any kind of role they might need to do with respect to this bill. Of course, during the first reading the Greens were, effectively, opposed to this bill on the basis that they felt justices of the peace were not suitably trained to take their place in the bill. I would argue that’s not the case, and I think that there’s very good reason for justices of the peace to be competent to deal with the issues and the challenges of this bill.

During the course of the Primary Production Committee, there were a couple of changes made to the original bill as there were some categories of offence that it was decided didn’t need to be contained in this bill as they were dealt with elsewhere in the legislation adequately, and, in fact, community magistrates could deal with those, again outside the system, so that didn’t need to be taken part of.

So I think that this bill, whilst it doesn’t deal with a large number of cases, it takes an onus off the courts, it eases—I was going to say “hardship on dogs”—makes the welfare of those dogs that get into trouble or whose owners get them into trouble a little better, and it also makes it quicker, easier, and cheaper for councils to manage these processes. I think it will also encourage councils to perhaps go a step further and charge some people for misdemeanours, knowing that they can get out the other end of it in an easier manner. So I hope that this bill gets support as it goes through its second reading, and I commend to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare nei. First of all, I just really want to acknowledge the member that just spoke, the honourable member Ian McKelvie. I got to know him quite well recently, earlier on this year. He’s not a bad bloke for being a Tory chap. I’m sure he’s actually really a communist socialist at heart. He’s on the wrong side.

💬 Hon Member: He is—comrade.

Yes, he’s our comrade.

Hey, look, but, jest aside, Ian McKelvie has brought this bill to the House because it deals to a particular area in his community but across all of our communities. Look, we’re a dog-loving nation, but we are also a nation that really cares about ensuring that the welfare of those animals that are going through the process can be dealt with too and also ensuring that the right people are dealing with—I guess, one, removing these category 1 offences from out of just the day-to-day time of the courts, the District Courts, and being able to ensure that these types of offences can be processed and processed well. So to the member, for identifying that this was a real issue for most communities across the country: ka nui te mihia ki a koe, e hoa [congratulations to you, my friend].

Look, I want to pick up on one of the notes that the member just made in respect to the role that justices of the peace play in our communities. Early on in my legal career, I was clerking for the judiciary in the Hawke’s Bay. One of the first tasks that they gave me was to provide training to all of the justices of the peace, so every X amount of months, I had to go and train them on criminal procedure and a whole range of other different things. I absolutely could not endorse more the comments of my colleague across the House just prior in terms of speaking to their competency, diligence, and just the ethic in the work that they do on behalf of our communities to ensure that the justice train, if you will, can proceed in a seamless and timely way.

I was looking at—trying to get my head across—just how much work this consumes of the District Court’s time and what we are really asking of justices of the peace if we were to support these amendments going through. Well, as I was looking through: if justices of the peace were to hear these category 1 offences—so these are all of the offences, basically, under the Dog Control Act that aren’t punishable by imprisonment—what would that do to improve court efficiencies and to free up those District Court judges’ time to deal with more complex cases?

So the number of active criminal cases in the District Courts is around about just under 30,000—it’s about 28,500. Sorry, that was in 2013-2014; now it’s just over 33,000, so there’s been a massive increase in the workload that has been sought and been required by those District Court judges. We can see that across the judicial landscape, in its totality, there were some fundamental amendments made by the previous Government, particularly in the area of the Family Court, that really increased the workload in the Family Court and across the District Court, which we say put far too much pressure on those courts and were poor amendments in the first instance. So anything that this side of the House can do to support the reduction of additional stress to those members of the judiciary that occupy that front-line role, we see as a good thing.

Actually, just while I’m on that note, I want to acknowledge the appointment and swearing in of Judge Heemi Taumaunu this weekend, up in Whāngāra Marae, who was appointed as the Chief District Court Judge. He presides over 172 judges. It’s the largest judicial appointment in all of Australasia. So that just happened—good East Coast lad—in the weekend, and so I’m sure that he will be pleased to see that the work of his judicial officers will be reduced by the introduction of this amendment by way of the honourable Ian McKelvie’s member’s bill before us.

So, third, on this side of the House, and, actually, in our—well, like I said, we’re a dog-fearing, dog-loving nation. I’m standing right next to, actually, my good friend and colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan. She’s often talking about her dogs. I can’t quite recall their names—

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Well controlled.

—but they are, well-controlled, good dogs. I’m probably—I’m being a little distracted, but I just know that her passion and love for dogs is overwhelming, because we hear about it a lot.

But this bill here, we say, will go to improving the welfare of dogs and these animals in terms of the reduction of the time and the stress that will be involved in the prosecutions under this Act, the separation of those dogs from their owners, and reducing that waiting time. So for us, again, we see some sense and sensibilities in the member’s proposals that are before us this afternoon.

If we look at, again, just at the landscape, this bill does reduce burdens elsewhere. Pound facilities: so when those dogs are picked up, if they haven’t been registered or, you know, if there’s been—for whatever they’ve done. So dogs are usually held—if they are picked up, they’re held in dog pounds, and there is an alarming pressure on those pounds and also the cost that it’s associated with. So where those dogs are typically held for the duration of those proceedings, those times will be lessened now. For dog owners: we say there will be a reduction in the burdens as well—so for those who are unsure about the consequences that will occur through the system.

The territorial authorities—and, actually, whilst I’m on territorial authorities I do want to acknowledge the submissions of Ashburton District Council, Rangitikei District Council, and Ruapehu District Council, who all made submissions in support and in favour of this member’s bill this evening. They did so because what they are seeing—and, again, it comes back to that point that they have the burden of administering the registration system and they have a role in administrating where there are breaches of that registration system by way of administration of the pounds and what not. So all three of those district councils, they swung their support in behind the Hon Ian McKelvie’s sensible bill.

I also want to acknowledge the submission of Federated Farmers. I feel like I get to hear a lot from them across many facets of my life—I heard from them today on guns; hearing from them tomorrow on water. But very, very pleased to see that they too have the time and the capacity to be able to support important bills like this, because we know that farmers in our rural and provincial communities—I think the member just made this point prior—are certainly the largest dog owner in the country, as a category of owner. But, you know, for many provincial folk, our dogs are our companions, they’re our workers, and they play a significant commercial, cultural, and social role in all of our lives. So to see that Federated Farmers have come out and they’ve put in a submission speaking to the merits of ensuring that the timeliness of any of these types of prosecutions can be reduced is a really positive contribution. So I want to acknowledge them and their submission.

There are a number of amendments that have been proposed to this bill. I didn’t have the privilege of sitting through a number of those deliberations at that time, but I have had the opportunity to read the reports from the officials. I want to acknowledge the work that they have done to help bring some finesse to the bill and fix up some of the areas, and there were several areas in the bill that have been proposed for amendment, and they’ve been accepted by the Primary Production Committee. So clause 4 of the bill introduced inserting a new section 66A, and that excluded three particular offences, which I won’t list, from lists of offences that could be heard by justices of the peace or community magistrates. So, basically, we’ve agreed to those. My time is running out, so I can’t get into the nuances, but I do want to acknowledge the member. Tēnā koe.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great—support as well for Mr Ian McKelvie for this very fine bill that he has brought forward in the member’s bill process. Now, Ian is very lucky in his drawing of member’s bills, and this is his second one, I think, that he’s done in the last year that’s been effective. So well done to him, and for his fine speech, and also to Kiri Allan for her support in her speech as well.

As we can see, it’s quite a simple process that the bill is going to go through. What it does, basically, is it takes a number of these cases out of the court process through the use of community magistrates and JPs to hear those offences rather than to have them take up too much court time. I think anything that speeds up the process of court so that we get victims’ rights to be heard, in making sure that those who have committed serious offences are brought to justice and those that haven’t committed an offence get the freedom that they deserve, is something that should be supported.

Also, within the farming community—I think it’s going to be important in rural communities as well. Ian McKelvie’s had a very strong interest in rural communities. With the Primary Production Committee, that has a very strong approach to rural issues and works together, I support this bill through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It’s an absolute delight to stand here and speak in support of the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill—the only gentleman on the other side of the House, in my view. Ian McKelvie is one of life’s gems. I say that because of two experiences that I’ve had with him. One was with the previous bill that he sponsored, which hit a bit of a stall, and I was very grateful to be able to work with him and to get that across the line.

The other was when I, just like Kiritapu Allan, who mentioned it in her speech, went on a parliamentary cricket trip with Ian McKelvie. What a gem he was to that team. There was one instance—and this is relevant to a contribution in his speech—where we came across a character at a pub who was very annoying and said some things that we didn’t appreciate. When he left—

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Did he get thrown out?

No, Clayton, he did not get thrown out. What we said when he left—we made our views very clear about this bloke; we didn’t hold back. But Ian McKelvie said, “Well, that was an interesting character.”, which I note was exactly the same word he used to describe David Bennett, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, who, incidentally, as chair of the select committee, you’d expect would want to do a full speech on something as important as this, not a 1½ minute contribution. He might be happy with 90 seconds, but I imagine that everybody else is not.

This bill is hugely important because it will reduce the time it takes for certain charges to be heard under the Dog Control Act 1996, and it will improve the welfare of dogs involved in prosecutions under the Dog Control Act by reducing the time that they spend in impounding facilities while proceedings are carried out. I’m not too sure if that was the motivating factor in this bill, but it is certainly an important factor that comes from this idea.

The Labour Party is very happy to support it, for three reasons. It does improve court efficiencies; as I mentioned, it improves the welfare of dogs; and it reduces the burden on pound facilities where the dogs are typically held for the duration of proceedings at the owner’s cost and, actually, a burden particularly to the smaller district councils around our country, like those where many of us on this side of the House live.

The bill allows judicial justices of the peace to hear category 1 offences not punishable by imprisonment under the Dog Control Act 1996 to reduce court processing times. Now, if we’re focusing on court efficiencies, it’s really important to note that in the past several years, District Court judges have found themselves under strain, responding to more category 3 offences and tighter bail laws that we saw under the previous Government. As mentioned in my colleague Kiritapu Allan’s speech, there has been a significant increase in cases, from around 28,000 in 2013 to 33,000 in 2016-17. That is a significant jump.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: It’s huge.

It is huge. The question we need to ask ourselves: are we comfortable with court resources being applied to things like category 2 dog offences when they have been under such strain for such a long time?

An example which I was particularly interested in was that the Family Court has been placed under considerable strain under the last nine years—primarily, in my view, because of National’s 2014 family law reforms. So there are significant backlogs and a massive increase, without notice, in urgent applications. This puts pressure on the Family Court and on families, and what we’ve seen as a result of that is that in May 2018 the Chief District Court Judge referred to a stretched judicial workforce and has been forced to redeploy judicial resource from the criminal jurisdiction to the Family Court to address those changes that were put in place in 2014. What this bill will do—and, again, I’m not sure if this was the main motivation, but it is definitely a positive impact if this passes—is it will reduce the number of issues that judges have to decide on, making it more effective and efficient for everybody. So well done to Ian McKelvie for that.

I touched on the welfare of dogs, and there was an example of my dog Max. I miss Max. I had to give Max away when I got this job, you might be distressed to know, because I was worried about his welfare because I wasn’t home long enough. I miss Max, but he’s with a lovely family in Gladstone. The thing is that Max liked to run away; it was his thing. We got him from an old lady in Wanganui, who said he was a lovely dog—she just neglected to mention that he liked to run away, but we’d got him by that stage once we’d figured it out. In fact, he was so good at escaping, we once had him at a kennel and he managed to escape. Before he escaped, she said that there had been no escapes in this kennel, which was ideal for Max. She looked out the window and she saw Max running down the road, and then she saw six dogs chasing Max. So not only did Max escape; he took six dogs with him. So he was very good at escaping.

One instance when he escaped, when he actually did end up in the pound, was the very first day we had Max. He disappeared, and they found him in the local Wairarapa College paddocks, where they do their agricultural training, covered in blood. We thought, “That’s the end of Max.”, but it’s all right, he didn’t get any lambs—he was in the afterbirth. But it took a wee while for them to determine that he’d been in the afterbirth, so he was in the pound for quite some time, at some cost to us. So that’s why that story is relevant to this bill.

So what we will find, with this bill that looks to bring in and reduce the burden on courts, is that in the case of Max—the Max case where he was covered in blood—it would have been dealt with much more efficiently and much quicker if the provisions proposed by this bill were in place.

So the question that is on the edge of your tongues after hearing from the chair of the Primary Production Committee and not hearing much at all—perhaps I should do his job and explain what is in this bill and what it does. A category 1 offence, not punishable by a term of imprisonment, would be placed under the jurisdiction of two or more judicial JPs. This makes sense to me. So, for example, for failing to register a dog, under section 42 of the Act, or failing to keep a dog under control, section 53—why should they go to a court judge, you ask. A very good question. This bill provides the answer. Now, of course, higher level offending would remain under the jurisdiction of District Court judges. That’s good. So, for example, dogs causing serious injury, that’s section 58(c), there’s no way that that should be placed with a JP. That is a very serious offence, so we can’t just be flippant. We can’t just be dismissive and say all dog offences should go under the JP. This is a very balanced approach.

Some other examples, just to reassure those who have concerns about this bill, would be: failing to comply with the effects of a dangerous dog classification, section 32; dogs attacking persons or animals, section 57; and failing to provide care, food, shelter, and exercise, section 54. I’m very pleased about that one in particular, because we should never take a light approach. [Bell rung] So soon! Shivers, time does fly when you’re having fun. The thing is that we should never dismiss the crucial obligation on all of us as owners of pets to look after their welfare, and I’m very pleased to see that that particular aspect has been excluded from the provisions of this bill. Dogs rushing at persons, animals, or vehicles; orders relating to dogs seen worrying stock—that’s very serious; allowing dogs known to be dangerous to be at large unmuzzled and possessing a dog in contravention of regulations under the Act—all of those will remain under the jurisdiction of the District Court.

Now, there were some changes that came from the select committee process, Madam Speaker, and I know you’re dying to hear them. Unfortunately, I’ve only got a minute, so I’ll be quick. The select committee recommended that some types of offences are excluded and others are not included, to be heard by justices, and a good example is the category 2 offence to ensure that a dog receives proper care and attention and adequate exercise should not be an excluded offence. And for consistency—and this is because these offences include a legal test—the following offences should be excluded: dogs rushing at persons, like I mentioned, and, in particular, stock.

Now, when we thought that Max had chased stock, we were very embarrassed because that is a hugely serious offence, and we would have had no qualms in seeing him put down if he was found guilty. But, as we now know, Max is innocent, and that’s a very good note to end this speech on. Thank you very much for indulging me. Once again, I’d like to congratulate Ian McKelvie for putting forward this sensible and rational approach to dog control.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That speech had me on the edge of my seat. I was more excited about the end of it than the start. But I too stand on behalf of New Zealand First to congratulate the member for bringing this worthy piece of publication to the House for ratification. New Zealand First will continue with its support, moving forward. We do believe that it started off as a bit of a dog’s breakfast—excuse the pun—bidda boom. I have to say, running through the select committee process under stewardship from the member across there, Mr Bennett, that it’s actually come out even better than what it was before it went in. Some people are at home waiting for a gap in these speeches so they can rush off and make a cup of tea, because they don’t want to miss a minute of these fantastic contributions this evening. They’ll be pleased to know that there is actually some sense and sensibility in behind this piece of legislation.

I just want to lament some of the comments already made in the House tonight about the character of the person bringing this piece of legislation forward. I, too, have had some great pleasure in personal interactions with Mr Ian McKelvie, particularly on the farm—where he’s known to be a good man who understands the communities and needs of farmers—but also out there in the hunting community, although I didn’t see him take a shot and he says he’s not particularly good at the shooting. But he left that to myself and my wife, and we at least brought some venison home for the family.

There are dog lovers out there. They are a breed to their own—excuse the pun, again. I am a dog lover. We have a dog, Lulu—not as manly as Max, but Lulu’s probably more of a cat than a dog, and sits in the window like a cat, really, does. So it’s not a hunting animal; it is a pet. But, again, I have owned other dogs in the past, where this legislation, had it been there, would have actually been of great help. I had a dog called Nira, quite a large dog that probably would have been caught up under these category 1 offences because it used to escape like from Alcatraz, and I’d find it down the neighbour’s house. At one point, it jumped through the neighbour’s window—it was a breaking and entering offence—to get to the neighbour’s dog, not to hurt the dog but to play with it. It was just such a big bumbling idiot but a great dog to have none the less.

New Zealand First, as I’ve already said, will be supporting this. It does actually do one major thing, and that is unblock the courts from more pressing and important issues than dealing with category 1 offences, which are those minor offences that dogs sometimes face themselves having problems with. We do believe that there is a need for this bill. It’s not particularly complex. I acknowledge that around 90 percent of all dog control issues are category 1 offences. That’s, you know, quite a large number of those, and, if we can take those out of our judicial system and allow our judicial JPs the role to manage and administer this process, it would be a lot better.

There is a difference between a JP and a judicial JP. Judicial JPs are a subset of the justice of the peace, and I think people need to acknowledge those differences. I see I’d better wind my speech up so I don’t have to do a carry-over. But the judicial JPs, just to finish off my contributions, are authorised to hear challenges to infringements in any category 1 offences if it’s stated in the relevant Act. Judicial JPs are not currently stated to hear matters under the Dog Control Act, but this would enable that to happen. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.