Hutchison Paul: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9752] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This Local Government Reform Bill (No 2) will shortly become the Dog Control Amendment Act. National does indeed support this legislation and we were very glad to be able to work constructively in the Local Government and Environment Committee with the other parties on this very very important issue. However we do note that this bill has been languishing since 1999 and that it took a crisis before this Labour Government was prepared to do anything about the very serious problem it addresses. The statistics show that in the order of 300 serious dog attacks resulting in hospitalisation occur in New Zealand per year and there are many thousands of other dog attacks. 
The point is that a large proportion of them are undoubtedly preventable. The task of the select committee was to respond to the Government’s crisis response to the mounting concerns across New Zealand regarding dog attacks. There were indeed a cluster of dog attacks in south Auckland at the beginning of this year. They were on children and they were very serious; but there was a further attack in Ponsonby that horrified many people. It focused the attention of the news media and finally the Government. 
I believe that it is important to revisit the submission that was provided by the family of Carolina Anderson. It described the fact that the owners of the offending dog failed to control the animal failed to come to Carolina’s assistance failed to call the dog off gave a false name and number to family friends and failed to come forward to the police or the family in the days after the attack. When the police arrested the owners on a Wednesday of that month they were found seemingly attempting to change their appearance. 
The submission goes on to say that because of their actions Carolina will be scarred for life yet under the 1996 Dog Control Act they face a maximum fine of $5000 and a mere 3 months in jail on the charge of possessing a dangerous dog. Even at that early stage after the event the family knew that the cost to them—the victim and parents—would be substantially greater. Only a few days ago I spoke to Carolina’s father and he said she had just undergone yet another operation and this is very much an ongoing event in her life. 
The submission goes on to say: “In light of the spate of dog attacks in New Zealand in recent months and the hideous impact this is having on many sectors of the community but especially children our family our friends and our many supporters in the community urge the Government to make an urgent revision of the Dog Control Act.” As we know this bill was brought before the House some months ago and the select committee has deliberated constructively. 
 It is incredible to read in this week’s  
Sunday Star-Times  
that the owners of the dog that attacked Carolina now have another dog of a similar breed if not exactly the same in their care. It just seems incredible the insensitivity that they have displayed in taking on this friend’s dog. It is absolutely irresponsible that again they are apparently parading around Ponsonby with a dog that is potentially a very dangerous animal. 
It appears—on reading the Dog Control Act—that the District Court judge did not actually incur either a probationary notice on this pair or suggest that there be disqualification. I understand that as it reads it is only the territorial local authority that may do so. The reality is that while the new bill means that anyone who is on probation or is disqualified is no longer able to own or possess a dog there may be an anomaly in that if a District Court judge believes or recommends that that should happen the territorial local authority will not know about it or the owners might move from one territorial local authority to another. An important anomaly in the system that was not picked up by the select committee clearly has allowed this pair—Thomas Owen and Brian Hill—to flagrantly go about with yet another menacing dog under their care on the pretence that they do not own it but they are merely looking after a friend’s dog. We have a problem here and hopefully it will be addressed by an amendment. 
I point out that there was overwhelming support in the submissions that this amendment bill focus on owner responsibility that irresponsible owners should be penalised and that councils be required to demonstrate better enforcement. We learnt that there was considerable variation in enforcement around the country with some councils keeping statistics and doing a very good job and other councils not achieving the sorts of results or standards that we would expect in New Zealand. Undoubtedly the committee has to balance the consideration of not being too restrictive to dogs exercising and socialising; yet on the other hand not having universal prescriptive rules for urban and rural conditions. 
Undoubtedly the most contentious issue was that proposed in the Government’s amendment—the requirement to provide a dog-free access from the street to a door of any house where there is a dog. That was daft. That was a clear illustration of the daftness of the Minister the Hon Chris Carter. Fortunately the committee worked hard to convince him finally that that was a ridiculous anomaly put up by the Government and it has been thrown out in this bill—quite rightly so. 
There is great sense in ensuring that responsible dog owners are given incentives and they undoubtedly are the majority of owners in New Zealand. A clear indication is that discounts in terms of registration in terms of turning up for educative courses etc. and in terms of complying appropriately with best-practice guidelines should be given to responsible dog owners. 
I end by saying that it also is a huge concern that we do not have consistent nation-wide application of the Act in New Zealand. There is a big need to get best-practice guidelines right across New Zealand that will be applied by the territorial local authorities. I note in the commentary as an additional means of addressing this issue that the committee recommended a new section 10AB be inserted into the Dog Control Act to require a territorial local authority to report annually on the administration of its dog control policies and practices. A template for such annual reporting could be included in the best-practice guideline being developed by the department and Local Government New Zealand. This is hugely important in my view. It will allow benchmarking as a stimulus for territorial local authorities to provide optimal rules and to enforce them.