Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9889] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments on the new schedule 1 “Infringement offences and fees” of the principal Act. There was quite a bit of discussion about finding the appropriate amount of fine for these classifications. It is important that the penalty should fit the crime particularly because the dog control officers are trying to work positively for the most part with people in the community. They do not want to have to impose a fine that is too onerous when they feel that people have not been breaking the law intentionally or purposely. It has been difficult to come up with the right amounts. 
I point out that dog control officers have an alternative approach. If they feel the amount is not sufficient to penalise someone they can take that person to court by issuing a summary offence and hopefully can have a greater penalty imposed thus sending a message to that particular individual that his or her behaviour is not tolerated. The frustration that many dog control officers have they tell me is that when they do that they find that the courts often impose a fine that is even less than the infringement amount so they have gone through that process for very little gain. I hope the new figures will also give a message to the courts about what the appropriate fine is when dog control officers have gone to the trouble of taking people to court to prosecute them. 
A couple of offences in the new schedule 1 were of concern to us. One was the increase to $500 of the fine for failure to register a dog. The real problem across the country is that many of the councils have not been imposing the old fine of $200 at all and people have been allowed not to register their dogs. If they are caught the councils simply say that if they register them at that point they will let them off. That is contributing to the large number of unregistered dogs in the country. People are not worried about having to pay a fine if they are caught. It is important if this legislation is to be successful and deal with the number of unregistered dogs that the councils mandatorily impose that fine. 
But we felt that $500 was a little bit too much. It is more than I think what people are fined for driving an unregistered car on the road. So I have tabled an amendment to alter that amount to $300. I have been advised by a dog control officer in Tauranga that that is a much more sensible and appropriate figure. That amount of fine would also apply to failure to keep a dog under control or failure to keep a dog confined. Dog control officers need flexibility in the way that they address the public. If they feel there is good will they do not want to impose too stiff a penalty. I submit those amendments for the support of the members of the Committee when we come to vote on them. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 42 the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 52A the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 53(1) the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 1 be agreed to.