Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9873] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with probationary and disqualified owners. I note that section 21 of the Dog Control Act which describes the classification of probationary owners refers to the fact that a territorial authority may classify a person as a probationary owner if that person commits three or more infringement offences within a continuous period of 24 months and also if there has been a conviction for any offence against the Act. 
I also note that in the bill the territorial authority still has the discretion to require probationary owners to undertake training. I think it would be useful for the Minister the Hon Chris Carter to take a call and explain to us why it is not a requirement for such individuals to undertake training education etc but a discretion. Clearly if there has been a conviction under the Act and if there have been three or more infringement notes then it seems to me that it would be appropriate to ensure that the owner undertake a territorial authority - approved dog owner education programme or dog obedience course or both and that the person pay for undergoing that training or obedience course. It seems quite out of order that we would still have discretion after there have been clear infringements against the basic Act. 
Part 3 also deals with the disqualification of owners. I notice that clause 11(1) states that “if a person is disqualified from owning a dog under section 25 the person must—(b) not subsequently be in possession of a dog at any time except for the purpose of—(i) preventing a dog from causing injury damage or distress; or (ii) returning within 72 hours a lost dog to the territorial authority”. 
This is of concern when we come to the case of Thomas Owen and Brian Hill because we want to be absolutely explicit. I hope the Minister will take a call regarding the question of someone being in possession of someone else’s dog. I have put in an amendment that should cover this situation fairly clearly so that instead of “not subsequently be in possession of a dog at any time” we should add “not subsequently be in possession of a dog or control of a dog in a public place at any time” to make absolutely sure that such incidences as have occurred with Thomas Owen and Brian Hill do not occur. 
The other thing that concerns me about probation and the disqualification of owners is whether this will apply right throughout New Zealand. One territorial authority may apply such a requirement to an owner but the owner may go to another territorial authority. Consequently I have put in an amendment that hopefully will deal with this. It amends the principal Act to ensure that “The classification of a person as a probationary owner applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that classification”. The same applies to disqualification also so that owners cannot go from one part of New Zealand to another and therefore get off the hook. I hope the Minister will take a call and assure the Committee that he has covered these very important issues.