Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3791] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Members will recall that when the debate was interrupted last night I was speaking to two handwritten amendments in my name in relation to the dog control clauses of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I will refresh members’ minds as to what those two amendments are about. The first seeks to amend clause 8A by adding a new paragraph that states: “Any dog savaging a child under 13 years must be put down.” We have listened to speech after speech from the other side all repeating the same mantra: “Microchipping will not stop dogs biting but we will impose the measure because we all said we would.” How realistic is that in dealing seriously with the issue facing us—dog attacks on young people like Carolina Anderson who was the genesis of this piece of legislation? The Government has brought out a concept about registration not about dealing with dogs. 
The Hon Damien O’Connor last night said that he wanted to see dogs that savaged people put down. Well I tell him that this is the day when he should support my amendment because that is exactly what it proposes. If the Government is serious about actually dealing with the problem then it will support my amendment because that would change the behaviour of dog owners. It will change the way in which dogs are handled in public. It is the most proficient step I can think of in doing something positive to stop dogs biting children. I ask members to consider the amendment as a very positive way forward in sending the strongest possible message to deal with the issue. It is simply not good enough to say: “We know that microchips will not stop dogs biting but we will impose the measure anyway.” That is the reason for the first amendment in my name—to stop dogs that actually bite children. Anybody who does not support that amendment—anybody who is not prepared to vote for that amendment—is saying that dogs are more valuable than children. 
The second amendment in my name which I want to bring to members’ attention proposes to delete the dead dog clause. Local authority after local authority fronted up to the Local Government and Environment Committee and to individual members in their electorates around New Zealand saying that this bill adds costs and includes a lot of unnecessary measures. I will refresh members’ minds as to what the Dog Control Act states. Section 10 of the principal Act states that it is the duty of territorial authorities to adopt a policy on dogs. That is fair enough. Why then does the Government want to be specific and precise and implement a whole lot of other measures? My second amendment would delete new section 41A inserted by clause 9D. 
Then I saw that the Minister had introduced an amendment that I thought did the same thing. When I saw it I thought: “Hello the Government is listening.” But no—it gets worse. The Minister wants to insert an even more prescriptive provision that imposes a 28-day requirement to comply with the measure. That is absolute nonsense! Members should consider the practicality for farmers and other dog owners who could be engaged in a range of things when their dogs die. They could be overseas having left the dog in the care of someone else who might not be as diligent in reporting the death of the dog. They could be mustering or in the middle of lambing. They could be occupied by a range of things that make it simply impractical to report a death within 28 days. 
I ask any member on the other side of the Chamber to tell me what damage a dead dog can do. What is the mischief in not reporting a dog as having died? The identity of a dog cannot be transferred—particularly if it is microchipped. When the time comes to renew registration the dog owner will simply not pay for another registration. Have members ever looked at a local authority registration form? It lists the dogs registered in the person’s ownership—those listed on the previous year’s form—and provides spaces to record newly acquired dogs dogs sold and dogs deceased. It is as simple as that. So why are we now requiring local authorities to enforce this measure—and prescriptively so; within 28 days—whether or not that is practical? The Minister’s amendment says that a dog owner must provide notification if it is “requested to do so by the territorial authority;”. If we are to devolve to local authorities the power to say whether they need notification ought they not to be the ones who decide whether the time limit should be 28 days 6 months or the next time of registration? Why do we want to be so prescriptive and have another add-on of costs? 
We heard a lot of submissions in regard to dog control. One of the most impressive was from the Marlborough District Council and it expressed something to bear in mind when we vote on the amendment proposing to remove the necessity to microchip working dogs. The council deals with that matter now in Marlborough and it is not an issue. It simply says that if someone claims that his or her chihuahua—or Alaskan malamute or Great Dane or whatever—is a farm dog the dog control officer requires a test. It is as simple as that. If the officer is not satisfied then the dog is not registered as a farm dog—no ifs no buts no maybes and no correspondence entered into. It is interesting to see from the statistics on the management of dogs—stray dogs dogs worrying stock and dogs biting people—that the Marlborough district is a fine example. It has shown initiative. It is not for the Minister or for Parliament to tell local authorities what to do. We should go back to section 10 of the original Act—the territorial authority must develop a dog management policy. It is as simple as that; that is the common-sense approach to take. Instead we start getting prescriptive and imposing measures that require costs. 
Today I received a letter from the Tasman District Council expressing its concern and making a couple of points. I will table this letter because I want other people to read it. The Tasman District Council says that the levy should be set at zero and that the Government must carry the responsibility for the matter. 
I seek leave to table a letter from the Tasman District Council with regard to dog management and microchipping. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.