Dean Jacqui: Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13909] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 The National Party will support the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) going to select committee.  
Moana Mackey 
: Ha ha! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I will say it again because the Government does not seem to hear the message. The National Party will support the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) going to select committee—and only to the select committee. We want to make some points about the bill at the select committee. I will cover some of those points today.  
We all support dog control. Of course we all support dog control. Everybody in this House and most thinking people in this country support dog control—just like we all support affordable housing. Of course we support affordable housing. We in the National Party just take a different point of view from the Government’s view that we need to apply a huge cost upon local government. It might sound a bit like a broken record for me to say this—but I do believe it—the real effect of bills such as this dog control legislation and the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill which was just debated in this House is to impose cost on local government.  
It sounds boring I know but when I was involved in local government time after time we were dealing with legislation—this micromanaging of the Labour Government coming down to local government—that we were required to turn into a by-law at huge cost and with huge time pressure. At the Waitaki District Council where I was deputy mayor we were sitting in a costly council meeting talking about some by-law we had to put into effect and we started doing a count of the number of pieces of legislation that were being handed down. At that time I think we got to 69. There were 69 pieces of legislation that we were compelled to do something about in the Waitaki District Council. So we said to the local member of Parliament at the time David Parker that the Government is imposing cost on local government. Do members know what the former Otago MP said to us? He denied it was happening because Labour Government members cannot see what is right in front of their faces. That is the effect that legislation such as this dog control bill is having on the sector. We ask to what effect. I think that is the debate we will have in the select committee.  
This bill which National will support going to select committee is all about a Government under urgency trying to look as if it is doing something. This bill under urgency is about the Government’s desperate need to look like it is actually doing something. It is a bit like the affordable housing legislation. It thinks it is doing something about affordable housing. Well actually the Government is not doing anything about affordable housing because so many years will go by until the policy comes into effect that today’s people who desperately need housing in places like Central Otago and Queenstown will have moved on. It is bureaucratic legislation.  
If we look at the general policy statement and the intention of this bill—which of course National supports—we see that the bill will “make it mandatory for dogs classified as menacing by virtue of belonging to a breed or type listed in Schedule 4 of the Act to be neutered.” We support that going to select committee. But the next sentence says: “Also the process for the addition of a breed or type of dog to Schedule 4 of the Act will be simplified.” Aha! So here we get to the nub of this bill; it is the process. The process is the problem with this bill. You know it sounds good—it sounds fantastic—but as with many bills the devil is in the detail. Once again this bill dumps on local government. On the one hand it is dumping on local government—yet again for the 72nd time in recent history; but on the other hand—and here we get to it—the bill is making the real decisions on dog control by stealth regulation and Order in Council.  
I turn to various parts of this very small bill which we are debating under urgency. Clause 4 of Part 1 is entitled: “Duty of territorial authorities to adopt policy on dogs”. Does that not just reek of ratepayer money? Does that not just reek of councils sitting for days on end and officers writing yet more reports because of this amendment bill? Does that not just reek of an increase in the general rate? Have we not just had the strongest message from local authorities from local government about the unaffordability of rates? Has this Labour Government listened? No. This Labour Government continues to foist upon us bills like the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill which was debated just shortly before this bill. It just reeks of putting cost on local government.  
This bill spells it out even further. This Government just loves tying up local government in red tape. Clause 4(2) inserts new subsection 5A into the principal Act and states that territorial authorities must fulfil the requirement to include any matters prescribed in regulations in their policy “using the special consultative procedure.” Oh no! Do members know how much cost is involved in that and how much timeliness? And what will it achieve?  
I turn to the new subsection 33E which is entitled: “Effect of classification as menacing dog”. It sounds good. Subsection (1) states: “If a dog is classified as a menacing dog under section 33A or 33C the owner of the dog must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or in any private way without being muzzled …”. It sounds good but then we get to subsection (2) which states: “Subsection (1) does not apply if—(a) the dog is completely confined within a vehicle or cage;”. That is OK but then we get to paragraph (b) which states that subsection (1) does not apply if “in respect of any dog or class of dog a territorial authority considers that it need not be muzzled in any specified circumstances …”.  
So what does this mean? It means that it is the responsibility of a territorial local authority to decide whether a dangerous dog as classified under schedule 4 needs to be muzzled. That decision lies with the territorial local authority. That is not a decision that should have to be made by a bunch of councillors living in a community. How will it pan out? What will the local authorities do with this particular provision? The provision states that a dog need not be muzzled if “in respect of any dog or class of dog a territorial authority considers that it need not be muzzled in any specific circumstances …”. What does that mean? Does it mean that the territorial local authority will have a hearing? Will it have a special council meeting? Will it have a public meeting? Will it have a submission process? What does this mean for the local authority? How will it be handled when some dog owner who has a registered dangerous dog says: “Oh well no I don’t think my dangerous dog under schedule 4 should have to be muzzled in public because it likes to go for a walk in the park on a Sunday morning. I promise it won’t bite anyone Mr Mayor.”? How is a territorial local authority meant to handle a decision like that?  
I move on to new subsection 33E(3) which states the requirement for an owner of a menacing dog to “produce to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a veterinarian …”. Is the Government kidding? In reality the dangerous dogs in our society in the main do not go to veterinarians.  
I turn now to new section 78A which is inserted by clause 7 of the bill. The section is entitled: “Regulations amending Schedule 4”. Here we get to it: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister amend Schedule 4 …”. This should be the decision of Parliament. That is why we are here. I am elected as the member for the Otago electorate to take issues like this back to my electorate take soundings from the people I represent and bring those opinions back to the Chamber to debate. That is what we are here for as MPs.  
I look forward to this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee where we will have the opportunity to debate these issues and to tell this Government to stop offloading on local government and stop trying to look as if it is actually doing something. We support this bill going to select committee with reservations.