Smith Nick: Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13900] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Is it not extraordinary that on the last day of the parliamentary year on which we are under urgency the Government’s great moment to address the issues of the nation is by way of the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2)? I have to tell members of the Government that when they are taxing New Zealanders to death when we are dropping in the OECD when people are dying in Wellington because of failures in our health system and when there are 5000 kids who are not at school I do not think that the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) under urgency will save the Government’s bacon. This bill is pathetically small. I question the Government on having the House in urgency to argue a measure that is of such little consequence.  
Let us just recite the history of what has occurred in respect of dog control. We had the awful tragedy involving Carolina Anderson from Auckland. The Government’s great answer was that we had to have microchipping of dogs. If only we had microchipping of dogs then dog attacks would stop! Well since then each year there has been a tragedy. I know that in Gerry Brownlee’s electorate there was an awful tragedy this year. So the Government once again brings in more regulation. More laws is the answer and somehow this bill will solve the problem that the Government told us was solved in 2002 solved in 2005 and here we are in 2007— 
Anne Tolley 
: In urgency. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —in urgency.  
I look at the detail of the bill and I say: “God bless Brian Neeson.” In 1997 members of this House will recall Brian Neeson brought to this House a bill to ban particular dog breeds. I checked on that. What did the Labour members say in 1997 when Brian Neeson proposed a ban on particular dog breeds? 
John Carter 
: What was it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Labour members said it would not work. In fact they vigorously opposed Brian Neeson’s bill. I was somewhat gobsmacked I have to say to the members opposite to read in the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) 10 years later that Brian Neeson’s idea has been resurrected.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: Under urgency. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Under urgency. Do members know what I think is really extraordinary? I think that Labour members in the 8 years Labour has been in office have become so bereft of any ideas about where to take our country that they thought they would check out the old books dredge through the history and see whether they could find an idea anywhere. They came across Brian Neeson’s idea and they said: “Let’s make it look like we’re doing something. Let’s pick up Brian Neeson’s 1997 bill about banning particular dog breeds and bring that into the House. Perhaps that might save our electoral bacon.” Well it will not. This bill will make as much difference to protecting children from dog attacks as did the changes they made in 2002 and in 2005 which equally were failures.  
I want to draw the attention of the House to just how minor the provisions in this bill are. It is not as though there is not provision in the existing law to ban particular dog breeds. All this bill does is make a minor change to the procedure by which we can ban particular dog breeds. There are some minor changes in respect of the policies that councils need to have in respect of dog control. I have to say to members opposite that if there is an issue that will change the votes of New Zealanders next year it will be the one of extra costs on ratepayers. Every single time this Parliament passes laws that impose additional costs on councils those costs go straight bang on to the cost of rates. After the last 8 years of this Labour Government we have seen rate increases running at more than double the rate of inflation. In my area rates today are 50 percent higher than they were when Labour came to Government. When I met with some leaders from local government this morning—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Barker that they said they have had a gutsful of the Government passing law after law— 
John Carter 
: 69 pieces. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: As my colleague John Carter National’s spokesperson on local government and a champion for ratepayers says 69 laws have been passed by this Government that impose additional costs on ratepayers through this sort of legislation. So when this bill goes to the select committee the question that will be on the lips of National Party members is what the additional bill for the ratepayer will be. Does Darren Hughes know what it is? How much will this cost the ratepayers in his electorate? 
John Carter 
: He didn’t think to ask. He didn’t even think about it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He did not even think to ask those sorts of things. You see whether it is this bill or the preceding bill the Government always has a plan and a strategy. The Government thinks: “If only we passed a law that made every council have a policy on home affordability then somehow houses would be more affordable. If only we passed a law that required every council to have a policy on dogs then somehow we would reduce dog attacks.”  
I say to the members opposite that the Government’s obsession with bureaucracy and strategies and all this muck makes little difference—as we see by their previous record on dog attacks. National says it is time to start thinking about the ratepayers. It is time to start thinking about practical measures. I would love to hear the next speaker from the Labour Party talk about the success of Labour’s policy of requiring the microchipping of dogs. That was the last great saviour of the people of New Zealand. Has that been a great success? 
Moana Mackey 
: John Carter thought it was a fantastic idea. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Miss Mackey whether dog microchipping has been a great success.  
Moana Mackey 
: John Carter thought it was a great idea. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No she does not want to answer. You see what Labour did was pass a bill requiring the microchipping of dogs which has made not an iota of difference. It has increased the costs for dog owners. It has increased the compliance costs for our councils. Here we are on the last day of Parliament under urgency again debating legislation dealing with dog control. We say this bill is incredibly weak and incredibly minor and it will not make a difference.  
In respect of dog control we should actually give councils less bureaucracy and more freedom to get on with their business. The penalties for instance that we apply to people who are involved in dangerous dog attacks are pathetic. Increasing penalties would be a low-cost way to make some of the irresponsible dog owners responsible. When I looked at this bill I thought that maybe the Government had finally had a dose of common sense and will impose some tough penalties on people whose dangerous dogs maliciously attack innocent New Zealanders. I looked at all of the clauses—it is not a long bill; it has only nine clauses—but not one of them addressed the issue of penalties which I think most New Zealanders want. I think most New Zealanders want tougher penalties for those people who have irresponsible dangerous dogs.  
I say to the members opposite that if they want to have law that will address the issue of dangerous dogs then they should punish those who are irresponsible get off the backs of the responsible dog owners and stop applying additional costs on councils which is making the job of our elected mayors and councillors so difficult. You see what this bill really says is that Labour has learnt absolutely nothing. For all that we spent on the inquiry into rates Labour is continuing to ignore the fact that every time this Parliament passes laws that increase the compliance and bureaucracy of our councils all we do is add to rates bills. This bill is not an answer to the issues of dangerous dog attacks; it is just more bureaucracy from a dying Labour Government that is bereft of ideas on how to take this country forward.