Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9874] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I want to take a short call. I wonder whether the Minister may elaborate a little on what happens if a territorial authority—such as the one in Otago for example—does not have a facility where a person may “undertake at his or her expense a dog owner education programme or a dog obedience course (or both) approved by the territorial authority.” If I take my own situation as an example in Alexandra to my certain knowledge there is no such facility. There may well be one in Oamaru or Dunedin 2½ hours away. Is the intent of the bill really to ask people to jump in their car once or twice a week and travel very extensive distances? It is not like living in Wellington or Christchurch where there may be two or three of those facilities. I am not at all certain how many of them there are in my own region; perhaps I should have checked on that before coming to the Chamber. But I am perfectly certain that there is no such facility in for example Alexandra which is quite a reasonable-sized town. Nor is there one in Wanaka or Queenstown so we would have to go to Oamaru or Dunedin for training. 
That is a huge imposition on dog owners for what might have been a small misdemeanour on the part of a little dog that needs a bit of education or on the part of an owner who needs a bit of education. How will it be practically achieved if the facility is a good 2 or 3 hours’ travel time away? Is that a fair and reasonable request or demand to place on an owner? Has that been thought through? I am not certain whether it has. As everybody is aware the cost of jumping in one’s car and having a dog carrier or similar facility to attach to one’s vehicle to carry a dog long distances is a real expense. I would imagine that $150 would be attached to the round trip in many cases. Is that the intent of the bill? Again I can only reiterate that in the bigger cities of course there may be a number of such facilities but in smaller provincial communities I would be very surprised to find one or two at the very most of those sorts of facilities available to ensure that the territorial authority can in fact impose that requirement and that it can be met by the individuals concerned. 
I wonder whether the Minister may take a call on this issue. I am all for the education of dog owners and dogs; I think that is highly appropriate. But dog owners have to have facilities in their own districts in the first instance to allow that to occur. There may be an opportunity for an enterprising individual to start up dog training facilities as a result of this legislation. That remains to be seen. But if a territorial authority has a problem with a handful of dogs—say a maximum of half a dozen dogs during any one particular 12-month period—is that really worthwhile and what is the practicality of employing a dog training officer or running a dog obedience course? Again that cost will come back on to the poor long-suffering ratepayers who will have to front up for the cost of such a facility. 
I will leave the matter there and I ask whether the Minister will in fact inform me of how such education and training will be achieved if there are no facilities in any given district. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to insert before clause 9 the following clause: 
9AAProbationary owners 
Section 23 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (2) the following subsection: 
(2A) The classification of a person as a probationary owner applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that classification. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 25 of the principal Act after subsection (3) the following subsection: 
(3A)disqualification under subsection (1) applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that disqualification. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28(1)(b) of the principal Act after the words “in possession of a dog” the words “or control of a dog in a public place”.