Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill

When we were debating this last, we had come to the National Party call—and are you seeking the call?

I am, Madam Speaker. I was just listening intently. Well, what a night for National this is. Right, I rise to speak to the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, second reading. This is important—yet again, it’s a common-sense bill brought forward by my friend and colleague Ian McKelvie. We all—well, not all of us; a few of us have experiences of constituents coming in saying “Look, you know, we have some real challenges with our neighbours’ dogs and the noise they make and the difficulty of getting, often, the local government to prosecute it.”, and then when it gets to the point of such a social nuisance that it has passed the threshold for a prosecution to occur, it can then get caught up in our judicial process. Again, regardless of the political persuasions that are reflected in this diverse House, I think we can all reach a pretty consistent view that our judicial system should be better focused on areas of perhaps greater import.

This is an issue that we have seen that Ian McKelvie has reflected on and said, well, actually, to make things easier, to be able to get better outcomes for communities, let’s actually ask our justices of the peace and magistrates to be able to listen to these issues and complaints. It’s a common-sense suggestion, one that will enable people who feel aggrieved by their next-door neighbours’ dogs yapping to actually see a pathway forward that can see their issues dealt with and, hopefully, resolved.

It’s a simple bill. It’s not particularly complex, but I think what it does talk to is an unerring ability of the National Party, on this side, in its members’ bills, to anchor their contributions in terms of solutions and things that actually make a difference for people in the community. Is this huge? No, but for those who get frustrated in terms of the difficulty of engaging with local government and the judicial process around dog control, this is a sensible change which will make their issues dealt with quickly—and for those people, it’s another example of a National Party that listens, a National Party that hears them, that understands them. We have, in Ian McKelvie, someone who is deeply attuned to his community, and this is an example of a small change that will make a big difference for a number of people. I commend it to the House.

Well, I’d like to acknowledge the member that’s just resumed his seat, Todd Muller, for that contribution. It sounded like an audition for the National Party leadership to me, and likewise all of the accolades that have been thrown his way. But richly deserved—richly deserved—I must say, in terms of the passage of bills that we’ve had this evening.

Just turning to the bill at hand, I want to acknowledge the member for the Rangitīkei—the mighty electorate of the Rangitīkei—Ian McKelvie. He seems to have a lot of good fortune, because he’s had quite a few members’ bills drawn from the ballot, and they’ve all been relatively successful, as I recall, including this bill, which we are just debating right now.

As has been discussed, this is about dog control—in particular, category 1 offences. Currently, those offences, which are only punishable by fines or community-type based sentences, are heard by District Court judges. It seems quite an unnecessary use of court time and resources, particularly calling on judges to be required to adjudicate over these sorts of cases, and so, rightly so, Mr McKelvie has brought this bill to the House. Rather than clogging up the court system and putting a lot of these offences—loading them up—on judges, he’s helpfully suggested that justices of the peace, who exercise a judicial function—and, likewise, community magistrates, which was originally proposed in the initial bill—be called upon to actually adjudicate such cases.

The Primary Production Committee, thanks to the advice that we received, found out it was unnecessary to actually specify that community magistrates have the jurisdiction at hand, because they inherently have that jurisdiction anyway. So it was redundant of us to restate that within this bill.

So there were some minor tweaks that were made in order to, I guess, achieve the objects of the bill, which, as I’ve said, is about court efficiencies. It’s about also animal welfare—ensuring that dogs that are impounded are not detained unnecessary or for prolonged periods of time. It ensures swift decision making and swift access to justice, and it’s a very sensible piece of legislation. It’s good that when we can come into this House—no matter if the subject matter is quite small—there are some useful things that we can do. This is one such bill that we are doing.

Once again, I’m sure that members of the judiciary, particularly within the District Court jurisdiction, will welcome the passage of this bill—likewise, the very wonderful justices of the peace that we have right up and down the country. We must acknowledge those good Kiwis. It’s unpaid—it’s a voluntary role that they take on—but I know many justices of the peace up and down the country take that position very seriously, and I want to acknowledge all the good work that they do, and I’m sure they’ll be looking forward to having this expanded jurisdiction whereby now they can adjudicate on category 1 offences under the Dog Control Act.

This bill is going to be welcome across a number of quarters. Likewise, it is supported from this side of the House, and, with that, I commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. I acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie. It’s a great moment for an MP to have their member’s bill not only pulled but then actually passed and now go through select committee.

This legislation is all about reducing the workload for our courts, where the workload has increased over recent years. It’s about increasing the animal welfare of dogs. I was made aware of a stat today that we have one of the highest per capita rates of dog ownership in the world. Now, they are man’s and woman’s best friend, and we love our dogs in New Zealand.

I’d like to acknowledge the intent of the legislation. I think it has been improved in the Primary Production Committee, because what they have done is, while those category 1 offences can be dealt with by justices of the peace, excluded a few offences. When it comes to the issue of dog destruction, I think it’s right that that can go through a normal judicial appointment and not just a justice of the peace. The Primary Production Committee has also taken out those category 1 cases that still have a legal test.

I think the measure is going to be the impact of the legislation. I’m aware of a statistic that 90 percent of dog control cases in the 2015-16 year—of 466 cases—were category 1. But, I note, in the select committee report, they mention, I believe, they estimate only a third of current cases will be heard after those exclusions are taken out. So it will be interesting to see the impact.

We are voting for this legislation because of the animal welfare impact. We’re not going to see dogs in pounds as long as currently is the case, because justices of the peace will have to expedite the process.

I’d also like to just take the opportunity to say that while we’re dealing with dog registration, we have a massive problem in New Zealand when it comes to backyard breeders. What I would personally like to see is, actually, a registration scheme for those breeders and compulsory de-sexing, because what we see is a number of animals actually raised in pretty horrific conditions, and the SPCA and other entities are unable to take action because shelter and water—even the barest-quality water, even if the water is covered in slime, is allowed under the existing rules. And then, sadly, these animals are literally just kicked out of the home and sometimes kicked to the street.

So this is an issue we’re going to have to address in the future, but I’m glad to be taking this step in a positive direction tonight. Congratulations to you.

I call Lawrence Yule—five-minute call.

Yes, but I’ll only be taking one minute of that, I think. It’s my pleasure to speak to this bill and congratulate Ian McKelvie on bringing this bill to this point.

It’s really simple, there are a number of low-level dog control infringements in the community; they often involve neighbours, people in a neighbourhood, and often the council or somebody gets involved and they’re really difficult to resolve. The dog sometimes can end up in a pound, there are costs of looking after that dog, and everybody gets stressed. The simplest thing that can be resolved is that somebody with some authority takes it to a court-type process.

All this bill simply says is that there is another way of doing this through JPs or a lower level court process. I think it makes imminent sense. My time in local government would show me that, actually, there does need to be lower level access to sort these things out. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak to this bill and offer three points on character: the character of dogs, the character of JPs, and the character of Ian McKelvie.

The character of dogs: they are our friends, for the most part, but for some people they can be quite frightening. Uncontrolled dogs can be a nuisance, and they do need to have some measures taken against them but they need to be reasonable and fair.

And that is why the character of JPs is so important. The JPs that I have had the fortune to be in contact with through my job as an electorate MP are people of great sense and good character. I think they are well placed to be able to deal with wandering dogs.

Just on the third point, then, in terms of people of great character, I would just like to commend my friend and former foe in the Rangitīkei electorate Ian McKelvie, who is a man of great character and good worth—I think it shows that in this very sensible bill, and I congratulate him on having it brought to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thinking I’ll make a short contribution on the Dog Control (Category 1) Offences Amendment Bill second reading. I would like to acknowledge again our kaumātua—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Kaumātua?

Kaumātua—Ian McKelvie—well, I prefer to think of him as a kaumātua—for another member’s bill, bringing this dog control amendment bill to the House. He is a very practical man with many, many good uses. He brought the stock-rustling bill before us as well; another very practical—

💬 Denise Lee: Very resourceful.

—resourceful sort of a bill.

So this is a relatively simple bill, and it is to bring category 1 offences so that a JP or a community magistrate can deal with them. It’s a very common-sense sort of a bill, and it will speed up the process and will allow things to be processed through the courts a lot simpler.

I know that some of the reasons why you couldn’t have JPs and community magistrates dealing with everything is there are issues around some serious offences when a dog needs to be put down, or other certain types of categories of offences which are of a more serious nature and require a judge to deal with them. This frees up the judges to deal with the more serious matters. So this is a great example of a member’s bill going through the House.

I see, in 2015-16, there were 456 charges under this Act, and 427 of them were category 1 offences. So this bill will deal with that, and it will impact on the delays in a positive way for court proceedings on pound facilities and animal welfare. It will reduce time for these cases to be resolved and allow judges to deal with the more complex cases.

So, yes, yet another great bill from another great man. I commend this bill to the House.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. Well, Ian McKelvie, top bloke tonight in the House. Top bill. Just a couple of things from me: I didn’t sit on the select committee, but the first thing that’s extraordinary is that there were 456 charges under the Act in the 2015-16 year, and, of them, 427 were for category 1 offences. Those were for things like failing to register a dog or failing to keep a dog under control—there were other ones as well, obviously—and they had to be heard in the court. Anyway, this seems like a pretty sensible kind of bill and we support it, and I commend it to the House.

Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. As we draw to a close tonight, it’s my pleasure to stand and take the final call on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I had the privilege of speaking to this bill when it came into the House. At that time, I took the time to acknowledge the JPs that do the work in our communities, and I repeat that because they do fill a very special place in New Zealand community.

We have heard tonight many contributions about how sensible this bill is. Certainly, we’ve heard how sensible the sponsor of the bill is, and I duplicate those credentials for him. It’s very simple: we just want to stop clogging up the District Court. Our JPs are well versed in being able to deal with these matters, take the pressure off the District Court. It speeds things up because, while you’ve got a dog that’s, basically, in custody, the cost is building on the owner—it’s got to be fed and housed; it’s got to be cleaned and have its healthcare dealt to. This is just a really simple way of dealing to that, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

Bill read a second time.