Franks Stephen: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9862] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I was glad that the Minister did rise to clarify the point I raised—that the rushing offence has simply been expanded. But I ask him to consider when looking at the commencement date of the new rushing provision the fact that even though the rushing may have led to injury or death the current Act still leaves the court with the discretion as to whether the dog is destroyed. The new provision—which has been substantially amended and which will commence on 1 December—leaves the courts with virtually no discretion. As soon as the court is satisfied that a dog has committed an attack it has to order the dog’s destruction unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is simply not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. This provision does not require that the cat be hurt in any way— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or a rat. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It could be a pet rat too. This provision does not require any kind of damage to have occurred and the courts have been concerned about that. They have expressed their concern about it a significant number of times. 
This Christmas present to New Zealand families will change our culture. It has been part of the New Zealand upbringing and experience that families have dogs. The commencement date of 1 December is rushing things. People believe that this bill relates to dangerous dogs and to owners who have taken no responsibility for their dogs. The Local Government and Environment Committee came out with a whole lot of provisions designed to try to distinguish between dangerous dogs and dangerous and reckless owners and the rest. Instead we have ended up with a bill that will penalise even the most benign dog that bites just once. 
It seems to ACT that this legislation should not commence until 2006 after the hysteria has passed. Most New Zealanders know that the legislation should contain provisions that instruct the police and local authorities to attack the gangs that have dogs that cause that sort of fear—to go for the owners who do not bother to register their dogs. The commencement date of 1 December 2003 will be a matter of utter indifference to the kinds of people who do not obey the law anyway and whose dogs are not kept under control because they are not even registered. That commencement date should be deferred until there has been some cool reflection. The Minister should have an opportunity as he will with the microchip provision—the 2006 provision—to think about whether he really means to make dog ownership beyond the reach of the average family which cannot afford to pay the kinds of fines and legal costs that will be inflicted on it when a simple single attack of the kind that this legislation penalises has occurred. 
This bill ought to distinguish between dangerous dogs and other dogs and ought to recognise the wisdom in the old saw that every dog has one bite. It ought to deal with the real problem which is not the control of dogs generally but the control of gang members families and people who are often not in families who do not give a stuff about any law. This legislation attacks innocent law-abiding people whose dog makes a mistake or who themselves make a mistake. That will leave more misery in the long run when children grow up without having had the pleasure of knowing what it is like to have a pet. New Zealanders who live in one of the least densely populated countries should be able to expect dog ownership to be seen as a right of children but we will have prudent parents saying they cannot run the risk of that. They will ask what they can do if the woman down the road complains that their dog has rushed at her cat and want to know how they can defend themselves if that occurs. It is a normal part of the relationship between dogs and cats that that occurs; our language is rich with the expectation of that. “Fighting like cats and dogs” is such an expression. It happens. 
This Parliament has leapt in and wants to pass this legislation by 1 December 2003—to have it in effect literally in 2 weeks’ time probably before it has been distributed and is known to people. I doubt given the current state of the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s operation whether the amended and published Act will be available even to lawyers let alone to ordinary folk by 1 December. That commencement date should not be the starting date for this legislation because there is no assurance that New Zealanders will know what the changes are by then or that they will have the ability to look up the details of them. That is a breach of our principle of law.