Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9870] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with dog control officers dog rangers and dog control bylaws and seems eminently sensible—unlike the member for Otaki from time to time—in repealing section 15 of the Act and substituting a new section 15 as set out in clause 5. That section headed “Power of dog control officer or dog ranger to feed and shelter dogs” is an appropriate part of the bill. The SPCA and in fact the whole of New Zealand would be totally in agreement that a dog control officer or a dog ranger who has “reasonable grounds to suspect that a dog is without access to proper and sufficient food water or shelter may enter on any land or premises where the dog is present and ... supply the dog with food water or shelter:”. 
It is important that we ask questions so that we can ensure that the dog control officer leaves appropriate notes that are readily accessible. That is so that he or she can be identified and the circumstances readily sorted out by the landowners if due to totally unpredictable events they have left their animal at home—such as being in a car crash and taken to hospital—rather than the situation being one of absolute neglect. It is important that in certain circumstances it is a two-way responsibility and that is spelt out in this part. 
Clause 7 is headed “Power of constable dog control officer or dog ranger to request information”. That was highly relevant to the Owen and Hill case which was such a tragedy for Carolina Anderson. In that situation wrong information was given to people involved and it is vital that as subclause (1) states: “A constable dog control officer or dog ranger may for the purposes of this Act request the following persons to state his or her name date of birth address telephone contact number and place of work ... (a) any person appearing to be in charge of a dog; or (b) any person appearing to be the occupier of any land or premises on which a dog for the time being is being kept.” We totally agree with that. It is right and proper that that provision be in this part of the bill. 
I note that the fine has substantially increased—from $1500 to $3000. One of the practical difficulties is that if fines become too much for minor offences one could find that this law will not be accepted in a practical sense and that people will avoid their responsibilities. While that sum is reasonable and it is reasonable in the case of Owen and Hill—in fact the fine should have been much more than $3000—it is important that the territorial authorities have discretion in certain circumstances to be able to impose minor penalties for minor offences. 
I go on to clause 8 which deals with dog control by-laws. I note that the Minister in his complete lack of wisdom has deleted this area and instead put it into his new Supplementary Order Paper. I find it extraordinary that not even the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee who is on the side of the Labour Government was aware that the Minister was to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper this afternoon that carries very important but not obvious details. This is quite a difficult bill to make in terms of the amendments to the original Act. It is absolutely irresponsible of the Minister not to have consulted the chair of his own select committee—let alone members of the other parties who worked in collaboration when this bill was before the select committee to try to make it as good as it could be.