Ward Mike: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Ward Mike: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9758] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Gerry Eckhoff and the Minister of Local Government made the point that it takes good dog-owners to prevent attacks on children. The Green Party shared the concern of all New Zealanders when Carolina Anderson was savagely attacked last year. It is entirely understandable that Parliament should question the effectiveness of the law. There is always room for improvement. The attack on Carolina indicated some shortcomings in the law. It also indicated a law that was inadequately enforced. During the select committee hearings it became evident that some local authorities do a less than adequate job of dog control. None the less there are shortcomings in the law and the bill does seek to address those. 
We heard from dog control officers of their frustration at not being able to pursue problem dogs on to private property. They will now be able to do that. The bill also requires local authorities to report on their enforcement measures. The best-practice guidelines will include reporting procedures. How will those measures help? I suspect that local authorities will increasingly come under scrutiny over problem dogs. Those reporting procedures will help that scrutiny to be done more effectively. 
Submissions stressed the importance of the education of dogs owners and the general public. We would have preferred dog obedience classes to be mandatory for new dog-owners and their dogs. But there are good dog-owner provisions in this bill with the possibility of cheaper registration fees for dogs whose owners have taken them through dog-training courses. That will provide some sort of incentive. The Minister also spoke of his intention to proceed with public education on appropriate behaviour around dogs. We look forward to that happening. 
We have some concerns about breed-specific measures. There is little evidence around the world to show that it works. Although we have little difficulty with excluding dogs that have been bred for fighting which are virtually non-existent here—like the tosa the fila and the dogo Argentino—we note that American pit bull terriers are notoriously difficult to identify and are not a specific breed. Such a ban is likely to catch a range of breeds that have no more history of aggressive behaviour than most dogs that are not on the list of dangerous breeds. The call to focus on the deed and not the breed makes some sense. We are concerned that if we identify some dogs as dangerous and require them to be muzzled neutered etc. some owners will simply train other dogs to behave aggressively. We are also concerned that some may think that if a dog is not muzzled if it is not a fila a tosa a dogo or an American pit bull less care is required around it. 
Although posties meter readers and visitors should be able to approach a house without fear of being eaten we are pleased that the provision requiring a fence to the front door has been replaced by a simple requirement that the dog owner must make sure that his or her dog or dogs are under control and must decide how that should be achieved. I notice that the chair mentioned that for dangerous dogs such a fence will still be required. I did not know that was the case. I thought the owner could chain the dog up in the backyard or confine it to part of the section. 
In view of the fact that very few of the around half a million dogs here are problem dogs we believe that microchipping just dangerous dogs menacing dogs and dogs that have been impounded is adequate. The bill also provides for local authorities to make microchipping mandatory for all dogs in their jurisdiction if they believe that is the best method of control for them. I notice that New Zealand First is prepared to support compulsory microchipping so it sounds like it will happen. 
This legislation will cover one of my other concerns and that is the belief that all hunting dogs should be required to be microchipped. Escaped hunting dogs are believed to be major offenders in attacks on farm animals and wildlife. Owners of such dogs need to be accountable for their dogs’ actions and to be subjected to the provisions of the law that make them liable to be banned from owning dogs. 
We believe that there needs to be a national register of dogs that is funded by central government. We do not believe that microchipping is a prerequisite for that national register. 
Probably all of the over half a million dogs in New Zealand are capable of attacking and biting but overwhelmingly most do not do that. A tiny minority of dogs are problem dogs and most of them are roaming dogs barking dogs and dogs that foul footpaths. Most dogs are companion dogs. Far from threatening anybody they make their owners feel safer not because they are trained to protect their owners physically but because they are likely to warn of possible danger. When one has company even the company of a dog one feels so much safer. Any attempt to protect us against the rare and for the most part entirely unpredictable dog attack must be tempered by recognition of the fact that most dogs are loyal companions. I venture to suggest that for every dog attack there are literally thousands of occasions when the elderly the frail and the vulnerable feel safer out and about or at home because of their dogs. Because of their dogs they do things they would not otherwise do. 
This bill spells out again the responsibility of dog owners to keep strangers safe by ensuring that visitors to their homes are not threatened. Where appropriate physical constraints may be used but the bill also reinforces the importance of education of the dogs of their owners and of children and adults about appropriate behaviour around dogs. The bill recognises that most attacks occur by a dog known to the person being attacked and recognises the requirement to strike a balance between the need to provide protection against dangerous and menacing dogs and the needs of the overwhelming majority of dog owners and their pets who pose little risk. Although there are penalties and some of those have been strengthened there are also carrots for those dog owners who are prepared to earn the status of being a responsible dog-owner. 
We see the good sense in ensuring that areas frequented by children are free of uncontrolled dogs. We are pleased to note too however that the local authorities have a responsibility to make sure that there are areas where people can exercise their dogs. We hope most local authorities will be smart enough to realise that those areas need to be available around most neighbourhoods. Not everybody is able to go long distances to visit an appropriate dog-exercising area. It is important that the need of dog owners to exercise their dogs is provided for. 
The Greens will be supporting this bill. It is good legislation. The point has been made by others that it alone will not stop dogs from attacking but I hope it will persuade more dog owners to be more responsible and thus will make dog attacks in the future a little less likely.