Shirley Ken: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10037] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 We in ACT believe that this is bad legislation and we will oppose it. It is legislation that has been driven by reaction and by emotion rather than cool thought. I have to say that the Minister is particularly guilty of over-reacting and bringing to this House very bad legislation. We have a parallel situation with gun registration in that this Government has simmering away a proposal to register all firearms. We know that it does not work. We know from the experience all around the world that it does not work. 
 I put it to members that the Government is just waiting for another unfortunate incident such as a tragedy like the one at Aramoana or Raurimu—the Dunblane equivalent—and then it will rush legislation in riding it through on a wave of public outrage and emotion. That is exactly what happened with this dog control legislation. It was on the legislative programme simmering away on the backburner. We had a spate of very unfortunate incidents that were absolute tragedies in themselves but this Government went to the lowest common denominator and brought in sweeping legislation. 
That is the point. It goes to the philosophical divide. Government members believe in big government and they believe in control. They believe in more regulation at every opportunity with the State increasingly telling people families and communities how they should live their lives. They do not respect freedoms. They do not respect personal responsibility. This legislation is right up there in terms of that philosophical divide. This legislation represents big government big control and prescriptive law. 
We know that about 300 serious dog attacks occur every year in New Zealand. That is bad and we certainly should be working to reduce that incidence. However with a population of 4 million people and about half a million dogs it is not surprising. Domesticated canines have been living with people for 100000 years—we have evolved together in many respects. Comments have been made about the incredible bond between man and dog. The comfort and security and enjoyment that many people get from their dogs is part of being human actually—and there is 100000 years of evolution backing it. 
With this bill we have the State stepping in with incredible controls. In some of the measures first proposed by the Minister every property was going to have to be fenced from the street right to either the front door or the back door. Even people on rural farms with homes 500 metres from the street were somehow going to have to have a narrow fence-way to protect anyone who might want to come along with registered mail and knock on their door. What a silly silly Minister! He lost that one at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was a member of that select committee and I concur with other colleagues—the committee was a cooperative one and we did some good work. The bill is significantly better than it was but that still does not make it good. 
The bill the Minister brought to Parliament was a shocker. It was atrocious. It was one of the most appalling pieces of State-control legislation that I have ever seen come before Parliament. So we had the nonsense of the “build the fences” situation and then the issue of microchipping. All the evidence was against microchipping. It did not make a lot of sense. Apart from that the cost is phenomenal. I heard the Minister on the wireless this morning trying to excuse it away. He said it would not be $70 or $100; it would be very cheap and efficient. He told us that his Department of Conservation put little microchips into kiwis and it does so very cheaply. The fact is that the chip costs between $12 and $20—that is established and I do not think anyone disputes it. To engage the services of a veterinary scientist we would be talking about—[ 
Interruption 
] Many will. Fifty dollars to microchip an animal would be a reasonable price. With half a million dogs in the country that is $25 million of dead-weight cost that this Government— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What’s a decimal place between friends! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: OK even if the amount is $2.5 million that is still a lot of money. It is dead-weight cost. It does not produce any wealth. It does not give anybody greater security. It is just dead-weight cost from the bureaucrats from the regulators and from the State controllers. 
The other point is the breed-specific nonsense. Again all the evidence from around the world is that breed-specific selection for dogs is a nonsense and does not work. Successive Governments in this country have rejected it on that basis. But oh no this Minister and this Labour Cabinet could not resist it. Here was a vehicle of control. They were going to seize upon it and legislate for it. United Future has already made some very good points about the American pit bull breed. One cannot distinguish between them. One cannot breed select and the Minister has been unable to convince anyone of how it will happen. It is against any advice he was received and that is very very unfortunate. 
Some things in the select committee were very humorous. The Minister with his definition of working dogs in his original legislation had not even excluded farm dogs and there was a requirement that all dogs that were not working dogs would have to be on leashes. The only working dogs were to be those that worked with the Customs Service the police and the Army. All working dogs connected with Government departments were given an exemption but the poor old farmer with a mob of sheep out on the road in Canterbury somewhere would have to put all his sheepdogs on leashes. That would have been a very interesting exercise in itself but that is the sort of nonsense this Minister and the Labour Cabinet bring to the country. 
But we still have in this legislation at its third reading stage—at a point where it is about to pass into law—the statement that a dog owned by a person and known to have attacked any person or any stock or poultry or property of any kind from here on in must not be allowed to be at large or at any public place or private way except when confined completely within a vehicle or cage or muzzled and controlled on a leash. It states: “to have attacked … property of any kind”. How many members in this House have reared a puppy? How many can say that a puppy has chewed a shoe? A shoe is “property of any kind”. So an innocent little puppy may chew up a shoe as a puppy is wont to do and be in breach of this legislation. It will have to be on a leash and muzzled. 
 That is extraordinary legislation and it is a recipe for increasing social conflict and pitting neighbour against neighbour. This legislation can be used by malicious and vindictive people to get at their neighbours who might have a puppy or a dog next door. It is bad legislation. It is foolish legislation. ACT will not be supporting it. On behalf of all dog owners and all sensible rational people who still have common sense in this country we say that this is bad legislation and that we are against it.