Franks Stephen: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9860] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been interested to hear the other members who have risen to speak on clause 1A which is the commencement clause of the Dog Control Amendment Bill. Those members seem to have focused exclusively on microchips. I have not been part of the earlier discussions by the House on this bill but I believe there are far more telling reasons why the Minister should not have this bill commence on 1 December. They are that this bill in fact changes a whole range of things that go way beyond microchips. The microchip proposal as I understand it will not really take effect until 2006—safely after the next election and safely in the middle of an election cycle so that the upset felt by the thousands of families who will be affected by this legislation will be at sufficient distance for the Labour Party to feel that voters will have forgotten about it by the following election. 
The commencement dates in this bill are important for other reasons. This bill goes through and changes a number of features that do not have anything to do with dog control and have everything to do with dog destruction. This bill brings in a new offence of rushing and the instruction to get the court to destroy the dog. Has any member considered what that will really do if it comes in on 1 December this year—before Christmas—when just about every ordinary New Zealander knows that it is in the nature of dogs to rush? Rushing is what dogs do particularly when they see cats. It is what dogs do in excitement. Rushing as the new offence provides for is something that every family pet will do no matter how well controlled it is at some stage or other. New section 57A in clause 29 provides that the court may order that a dog be destroyed if it has rushed at persons animals or vehicles. When that provision commences on 1 December this year there will be some very miserable families if it is taken seriously—if the police bring prosecutions in respect of a dog’s normal behaviour towards cats. It does not even require in that new offence that there be any injury to anyone. It requires only that there be a risk of that. Of course there is often such a risk. When a cat is sitting on the top of the letterbox and hissing in its defiance but also in its satisfaction at having evaded a dog there could have been a risk of injury. 
We should also look at the changes that this bill makes to section 57 of the principal Act when thinking of the commencement date because we can see that section 57 states that the court must order destruction of the dog unless it is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. Well how exceptional is it for a dog to attack a cat? It happens every day. The most placid dog can be tempted into attacking a cat and this legislation does not leave a judge with any discretion. It is not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. We have had judges who have given their comments about this provision. Yet the Parliament is to rush this legislation through and have it commence on 1 December this year probably before most New Zealanders will even be aware that the bill is through and before most New Zealanders have any idea that the risks now of owing a dog—something that is part of the heritage of this country far more than most of the pseudo-heritage that this Government tries to protect; the tradition of a family pet and of the kids being able to walk the dog in the park—are so high that for any family that does not have discretionary income it will not be a sensible thing to have a dog. 
Is that what this Minister wants—that the Christmas present is a new law that says people should not risk having a dog because it could bankrupt them and their family if it so much as attacks one cat? There is no recollection of the wisdom in the old saying that every dog has one bite. Many dogs will have one bite although they are perfectly sound safe pets. They will have one bite because they are provoked. There is nothing in the bill that says a provoked dog should not be destroyed. Even a human gets self-defence as a defence.