Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9858] 
Dog Control Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is no doubt that there was a need for focusing on the main aims of the 1996 legislation and that some of those did need updating. There is no doubt that it was appropriate that they centre on owner responsibility better nationwide enforcement and a clampdown on irresponsible owners. I am slightly sorry that we are not taking this bill clause by clause. It is relevant that we talk on the title and the title itself is appropriate in terms of the bill being a dog control amendment bill but it could also fittingly be called the “Labour Government Let’s Wait 4 Years Until There is A Crisis Bill”. After all this particular legislation has been languishing for over 4 years and it was not until there was a spate of dog attacks in south Auckland and around the country and finally the awful situation with the dog that mauled Carolina Anderson that the Labour Government was jolted out of its state of languishing and finally did something regarding this bill. The National Party certainly does support the main thrust of this bill but we are particularly concerned about universal microchipping. 
Another title that perhaps this bill could have had is the “Labour Government (We’ll Build Fences as Long as the Great Wall of China) Bill”. There is no doubt that the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter was all for fencing off every farm every hamlet every personal home in the country to in his view secure the population from dangerous dogs. Fortunately he came to his senses and that part of the bill has been wiped. 
But perhaps the third title suggestion could be the “Labour Government Central Control (Make Another Million Dollar Database and Microchip Them All) Bill”. Because unfortunately that is what the Labour Government is planning to do. Even though the Local Government and Environment Committee did not recommend universal microchipping for a whole variety of reasons for some unfathomable reason the Minister Chris Carter decided to override the select committee that heard all the submissions that cooperated well that collaborated well and prescribed in a true socialist Labour Government way universal microchipping for all dogs in New Zealand even though it is very costly not only in money terms but also probably on the dogs themselves. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The history of dog control issues is almost as long as the last decade—in fact as I said in the second reading debate it goes back to 1991. The other issue which was the major issue then was breed-related with regard to the supposed impact of dangerous dogs. That was heightened after 1997 after the death of Mr Dinsdale and the supposed belief that pit bull terriers had been part of that death and resulted in the select committee being set up that put together Parts 1 2 and 3 of the original Dog Control Bill in 1999. 
As I said in the second reading I think it is important to go through the history of the bill as we consider the parts under the title of Dog Control Bill because the issue really was then one of control. The issue was whether it was to be a direct control. If we are looking at the title that could be. The aspect of universal microchipping has now been advanced. But the issues we were concerned about in the select committee were to modify and to make good the bill as it was in the committee and that met with most of our support. 
New Zealand First has taken a position on microchipping that is unrelated to the Minister’s stance because when we looked at the cost of the microchipping suggestions that were made in this bill we considered they were too costly for a few thousand dogs at the very most. The establishment of a national data register and what that meant in terms of technology was a costly exercise and in this case would be met by either the taxpayer or the ratepayer. We will come to that as we go through that part of the bill. New Zealand First has found that this is basically a Dog Control Bill. Microchipping is not a control issue. Perhaps that should have been added to the title of the bill because strictly speaking that comes under registration. This bill could have been called the “Dog Control Amendment and Registration Bill” and that would have met the terms not only of this debate but also of the bill more strictly as it will be in its final form. On behalf of New Zealand First and like others on the committee we arrived here with a bill that generally enjoys consensus. The title is one that we agree with and we are pleased to support the bill further. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 1A Commencement 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note that there are some suggestions in this clause that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004 and that clauses 8 15 and 35 come into force on 1 July 2006. It seems to me that if clause 8 were allowed to come into force on 1 July 2006 it would give effect to universal microchipping throughout New Zealand coming into effect on that date. I believe that that is contrary to the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee certainly in terms of the compliance costs and in terms of the priorities that this legislation is trying to achieve and they are to diminish the number of preventable dog attacks. In my view that provision is inappropriate. 
However the select committee did consider the other two options. Clause 15 deals with microchipping dangerous and menacing dogs and the select committee was in agreement with that. Clause 35 refers to dogs that have been impounded—that they also be microchipped—and there was no great objection to that. But the question of universal microchipping needs further debate in this Chamber. Given that the select committee heard all the submissions and agreed that it was inappropriate to have universal microchipping as suggested by clause 8 which would bring it into being in New Zealand on 1 July 2006 it is highly relevant to this commencement date to talk about universal microchipping and the fact that it certainly is not a priority in terms of reducing unnecessary dog attacks. 
There are many things that should be done prior to the enormous expense incurred by having clause 8 coming into force. It is for that reason that I think it is important the Committee takes note of the amendment that I have put forward regarding clause 1A and that is to omit from subclause (1A) the expression “8”. Undoubtedly the select committee noted that the most important measures in terms of preventing unnecessary dog attacks centred on owner responsibility much better nationwide enforcement and a clampdown on irresponsible owners. It is the irresponsible owners whose dogs often do not have either collars or discs and they are also very unlikely to have microchips. Besides we know that all dogs will be required to have collars and discs even if they do have microchips. Not only is this an extra cost and compliance but it will be over and above the requirement for all dogs to wear collars and discs which is the status right now. 
But we have learnt that it is the irresponsible dog owners the ones who have unregistered dogs and whose dogs do not have collars and discs who are very unlikely to conform with the requirements for microchipping. I believe that the Minister is quite out of place when he provides in clause 1A for clause 8 to come into effect on 1 July 2006. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The commencement date of any bill is important but in this case it is even more important if one accepts universal microchipping. As has already been stated the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee did not support universal microchipping but they did support the microchipping of those dogs classified as dangerous and menacing and impounded dogs that are returned to their owners. That provision takes effect on the commencement date of this bill. Therefore the commencement date becomes important. It allows the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs and local councils to set in place the procedures by-laws and all the other things that will go with this bill being not just dog control legislation but also in time allowing for new or additional types of registration. Therefore the commencement time is important. We concur with the Minister that the maximum amount of time is needed both now and through to July 2006. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 A common concern of those who did not wish to see their dogs microchipped was the cost involved. I note that clause 15(3)(b) provides that a dog owner must provide to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying that the dog will not be in a fit condition to be microchipped before the specified date. It seems to me it is not terribly difficult for a local authority to judge whether a dog has been microchipped because it is done simply by waving a wand over it. The idea that the device has to be inserted by a veterinary surgeon— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are debating clause 1A “Commencement”. 
MIKE WARD 
: I was simply raising the issue as a warning to the Minister that I would like some clarification later on. I concur with Mr Peters that the Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned that the provisions relating to dangerous dogs will come into force at the point of enactment of these provisions—in 2006. It seems to me that 2006 is a long way off for dogs that have been judged to be dangerous or menacing. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been interested to hear the other members who have risen to speak on clause 1A which is the commencement clause of the Dog Control Amendment Bill. Those members seem to have focused exclusively on microchips. I have not been part of the earlier discussions by the House on this bill but I believe there are far more telling reasons why the Minister should not have this bill commence on 1 December. They are that this bill in fact changes a whole range of things that go way beyond microchips. The microchip proposal as I understand it will not really take effect until 2006—safely after the next election and safely in the middle of an election cycle so that the upset felt by the thousands of families who will be affected by this legislation will be at sufficient distance for the Labour Party to feel that voters will have forgotten about it by the following election. 
The commencement dates in this bill are important for other reasons. This bill goes through and changes a number of features that do not have anything to do with dog control and have everything to do with dog destruction. This bill brings in a new offence of rushing and the instruction to get the court to destroy the dog. Has any member considered what that will really do if it comes in on 1 December this year—before Christmas—when just about every ordinary New Zealander knows that it is in the nature of dogs to rush? Rushing is what dogs do particularly when they see cats. It is what dogs do in excitement. Rushing as the new offence provides for is something that every family pet will do no matter how well controlled it is at some stage or other. New section 57A in clause 29 provides that the court may order that a dog be destroyed if it has rushed at persons animals or vehicles. When that provision commences on 1 December this year there will be some very miserable families if it is taken seriously—if the police bring prosecutions in respect of a dog’s normal behaviour towards cats. It does not even require in that new offence that there be any injury to anyone. It requires only that there be a risk of that. Of course there is often such a risk. When a cat is sitting on the top of the letterbox and hissing in its defiance but also in its satisfaction at having evaded a dog there could have been a risk of injury. 
We should also look at the changes that this bill makes to section 57 of the principal Act when thinking of the commencement date because we can see that section 57 states that the court must order destruction of the dog unless it is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. Well how exceptional is it for a dog to attack a cat? It happens every day. The most placid dog can be tempted into attacking a cat and this legislation does not leave a judge with any discretion. It is not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. We have had judges who have given their comments about this provision. Yet the Parliament is to rush this legislation through and have it commence on 1 December this year probably before most New Zealanders will even be aware that the bill is through and before most New Zealanders have any idea that the risks now of owing a dog—something that is part of the heritage of this country far more than most of the pseudo-heritage that this Government tries to protect; the tradition of a family pet and of the kids being able to walk the dog in the park—are so high that for any family that does not have discretionary income it will not be a sensible thing to have a dog. 
Is that what this Minister wants—that the Christmas present is a new law that says people should not risk having a dog because it could bankrupt them and their family if it so much as attacks one cat? There is no recollection of the wisdom in the old saying that every dog has one bite. Many dogs will have one bite although they are perfectly sound safe pets. They will have one bite because they are provoked. There is nothing in the bill that says a provoked dog should not be destroyed. Even a human gets self-defence as a defence. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I feel compelled to rise and rebut some points raised by the previous speaker that are simply not true. Rushing for example is not a new offence at all. It is contained in the 1996 legislation which continues in this legislation. It is given its own section in this new legislation but it was contained in the Act. Also rushing does not automatically lead to the destruction of a dog. A court may order a dog’s destruction through repeated and dangerous behaviour but it has that discretionary power. Attacking of course does lead to the destruction of a dog unless exceptional circumstances apply. 
The previous speaker from the ACT party said the Government was rushing to get this bill through in time for this summer so we could have a draconian and sort of holocaust approach to dogs. Actually the issue is about getting this legislation through before the summer holidays begin so that we can keep children safe in our community. Members of the House will remember that last summer there was a series of very dangerous dog attacks where some children were very badly injured and suffered life-threatening injuries. We do not want to see that repeated in our community. 
The speaker from the Green Party Mr Ward raised a question about timing. I want to clarify for him that the provisions of the legislation apply as far as the provisions on dangerous and menacing dogs are concerned from the time the bill is signed into law. So for this summer the provisions about keeping dogs on leashes muzzling dangerous breeds and so on will apply so that communities especially children will be safer. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on clause 1A(1) which states: “Section 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004.” New section 52A(2)(b) inserted by clause 24 states that a dog must be “confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises”. I am sure we will have a more extensive debate on that provision when we come to Part 5. The requirement is a vast improvement on the original one which was to provide fenced access to the front door and I think it will be welcomed by many people. It is wise that the commencement of that provision does not occur until 1 June because it will involve some costs to dog owners. It will require some planning on their part to ensure that their properties comply with the regulations. 
I think the provision is sensible and reasonable. I know that many people are concerned when they jog and walk around communities about dogs that are able to come straight out on to the road. Although those dogs may not actually engage in an attack they do cause a considerable degree of fear and concern in people who are simply passing by properties. I welcome this measure and I think it is sensible that it does not commence until next year. 
However the public should be made aware of the fact that this law is coming and that they will need to count the cost of having a dog on their property. If their dogs are to be allowed to circulate their sections completely they will need to consider how they will meet this requirement to have them under control. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I was glad that the Minister did rise to clarify the point I raised—that the rushing offence has simply been expanded. But I ask him to consider when looking at the commencement date of the new rushing provision the fact that even though the rushing may have led to injury or death the current Act still leaves the court with the discretion as to whether the dog is destroyed. The new provision—which has been substantially amended and which will commence on 1 December—leaves the courts with virtually no discretion. As soon as the court is satisfied that a dog has committed an attack it has to order the dog’s destruction unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is simply not exceptional for a dog to attack a cat. This provision does not require that the cat be hurt in any way— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or a rat. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It could be a pet rat too. This provision does not require any kind of damage to have occurred and the courts have been concerned about that. They have expressed their concern about it a significant number of times. 
This Christmas present to New Zealand families will change our culture. It has been part of the New Zealand upbringing and experience that families have dogs. The commencement date of 1 December is rushing things. People believe that this bill relates to dangerous dogs and to owners who have taken no responsibility for their dogs. The Local Government and Environment Committee came out with a whole lot of provisions designed to try to distinguish between dangerous dogs and dangerous and reckless owners and the rest. Instead we have ended up with a bill that will penalise even the most benign dog that bites just once. 
It seems to ACT that this legislation should not commence until 2006 after the hysteria has passed. Most New Zealanders know that the legislation should contain provisions that instruct the police and local authorities to attack the gangs that have dogs that cause that sort of fear—to go for the owners who do not bother to register their dogs. The commencement date of 1 December 2003 will be a matter of utter indifference to the kinds of people who do not obey the law anyway and whose dogs are not kept under control because they are not even registered. That commencement date should be deferred until there has been some cool reflection. The Minister should have an opportunity as he will with the microchip provision—the 2006 provision—to think about whether he really means to make dog ownership beyond the reach of the average family which cannot afford to pay the kinds of fines and legal costs that will be inflicted on it when a simple single attack of the kind that this legislation penalises has occurred. 
This bill ought to distinguish between dangerous dogs and other dogs and ought to recognise the wisdom in the old saw that every dog has one bite. It ought to deal with the real problem which is not the control of dogs generally but the control of gang members families and people who are often not in families who do not give a stuff about any law. This legislation attacks innocent law-abiding people whose dog makes a mistake or who themselves make a mistake. That will leave more misery in the long run when children grow up without having had the pleasure of knowing what it is like to have a pet. New Zealanders who live in one of the least densely populated countries should be able to expect dog ownership to be seen as a right of children but we will have prudent parents saying they cannot run the risk of that. They will ask what they can do if the woman down the road complains that their dog has rushed at her cat and want to know how they can defend themselves if that occurs. It is a normal part of the relationship between dogs and cats that that occurs; our language is rich with the expectation of that. “Fighting like cats and dogs” is such an expression. It happens. 
This Parliament has leapt in and wants to pass this legislation by 1 December 2003—to have it in effect literally in 2 weeks’ time probably before it has been distributed and is known to people. I doubt given the current state of the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s operation whether the amended and published Act will be available even to lawyers let alone to ordinary folk by 1 December. That commencement date should not be the starting date for this legislation because there is no assurance that New Zealanders will know what the changes are by then or that they will have the ability to look up the details of them. That is a breach of our principle of law. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to make a few more points with regard to the commencement date. Firstly I refer to the point made by Larry Baldock about clause 24 which relates to the fencing provision. To my mind the Government has fortunately come to its senses. It has recognised that fencing half of New Zealand is inappropriate and that the major thrust of this bill should certainly be on owner responsibility. The point is that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004. 
The Government has suddenly today brought in Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter. It has not discussed with anyone that Supplementary Order Paper which overrides the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee and it has led to considerable confusion. I do not entirely agree with Stephen Franks of ACT that it is inappropriate that the bill comes into force on 1 December this year; I believe that the bill should have come in years ago. It was only because the Labour Government did not focus on the importance of preventable dog attacks for 4 long years that a crisis occurred and finally it got around to doing something. 
As I have pointed out owner responsibility is vital and clause 24 does indeed deal with the control of dogs on an owner’s property. It makes the point that the owner of a dog must at all times ensure that the dog is either under the direct control of a person or confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises. That to my mind is reasonable and is the sort of law that all responsible dog owners should abide by. If an owner is not abiding by that then it is right and proper that appropriate fines are put on that person. Unfortunately there is a small group of irresponsible owners. 
That is the same argument that goes along with microchipping—again these comments are on the commencement date because after all clauses 8 15 and 35 are due to commence on 1 July 2006. Indeed providing for universal microchipping was the difference the Government made on Supplementary Order Paper 167 overriding the select committee’s wishes. What is so aggravating about this Labour Government bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper on top of its bill which has been to the select committee and amended by it is that the bill is now quite different. We no longer know whether clause 8 is omitted whether it comes into force on 1 December 2003 or whether it comes into force on 1 July 2006 as the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper states. I hope he will take a call to explain why clause 8 is omitted. I hope that he has rethought that come to his senses again and realised that the wisdom of the select committee should be followed: that universal microchipping is inappropriate in New Zealand and that there are far more important priorities. This is the point that Mr Franks made. 
We want to have practical enforcement of dog laws in New Zealand. We do not want to devote a huge amount of time and attention to expensive databases and microchipping every dog that is with a responsible owner. We want to clamp down on irresponsible owners and ensure that the basic framework of the 1996 legislation is better enforced because it has not been universally enforced around New Zealand. Hence I hope that the Minister will take a call to explain why he has suddenly brought in that Supplementary Order Paper to override the bill that this Parliament expected to see today and to say whether he has indeed come to his senses and decided to do in with universal microchipping. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 1A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A further amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 1A is inconsistent with the decision the Committee has just made and I rule it out of order. 
Clause 1A as amended agreed to. 
Clause 2 Interpretation 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
New clause 2A Objects  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to insert new clause 2A be agreed to. 
New clause 2A agreed to. 
Part 1 Functions duties and powers of territorial authorities 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I am reminded of the old cliché: “Every dog has his day” particularly when it comes to this Minister of Local Government. This Minister has chosen a very bad case to introduce some very bad law with regard to the microchipping of dogs across the whole of New Zealand. I am reminded of that old saying because despite the fact there has been concern about this dog law through about three Parliaments under this Government we are today debating this bill yet in the case of horrendous crimes against people—and 92 percent voted in the election before last for tougher sentencing—we have done nothing. When it comes to dogs and the case of the little girl Carolina Anderson who was injured we are today rushing through legislation that will result in the microchipping of every dog in New Zealand. 
In the Local Government and Environment Committee there was widespread support for most of the intent that is set out in this legislation but there was certainly no support for microchipping every dog and the cost that goes with that. This Minister under the advice that he was given said: “I’ll make a generous offer. We’ll set up the database. We’ll put up the dough for that.” It would probably have been a smarter decision for the Minister to say: “We’ll spend a bit of money on education on dogs particularly dangerous dogs and dog ownership.” Instead of that the Government has decided it will set up another INCIS computer program somewhere—another quango somewhere that is likely to end up in disaster. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who made that hash? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Listen to the interjection from the other side of the Committee! That has certainly set members on that side alight. They never learn. They should learn from the mistakes of the past. 
The Government is to set up a computer program. How will a computer program go out on the streets and prosecute and track down those who flagrantly abuse the law? How will it work? How will it actually bring to heel the dangerous dogs listed in this bill that people still keep and do not have microchipped? How will it work? What will the Government do to ensure that local authorities around New Zealand enforce the law? I appeal to local authorities up and down New Zealand that may be listening to this debate to please go out and implement the intention of this law but show sensible discretion when it comes to sensible owners who do not have their dogs microchipped or do not meet other restraints or regulations that may be placed on them in this legislation. Much has been made of the fact that it is a family tradition— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 3 and 4 are the clauses under discussion. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am aware of that and I will come back to those clauses. Clause 8 allows microchipping. I accept that it is outside the Part 1 debate we are having at the moment but it is at the guts of—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the Minister have something to say? I did not catch that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Everyone is trying to help the member. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes I am grateful for that support. Surely the Minister will take a call to correct any mistakes he thinks I might have made with regard to the discussion I am involved in. I will wait for that call and listen with great interest. 
The bottom line is we are debating legislation today that will not fix the problem that is associated with the reason why this debate is taking place. Unless we have local government bodies that are prepared to go out and enforce the law and unless we have a Government that is prepared to support those people in that role then this bill will not overcome the problems we have. If members look at the various bits of Part 1 they will find that local authorities must adopt a policy to regulate the behaviour of dogs in public places. Well will they? Will the Minister make sure they do that? Will they do so in the future? There has been no evidence of it in the past. In fact if the law had been upheld in that regard the particular case in point would not have happened. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The previous speaker the National spokesperson Mr Ardern asked two very very good questions. He asked what the Government was doing about education about dog safety. Clearly that member has not been reading the releases from my office. If he had he would know that some months ago the Government agreed to set aside half a million dollars for a public education campaign about dog safety. That member was quite right; we could set up every law we can to try to make the community safe and to encourage the local bodies that have to enforce the law to carry out their obligations but we could never prevent especially in the home attacks by dogs. I am focusing a half-million-dollar public education programme on dog safety in schools and kindergartens in order to get that dog safety message across because it is very important. 
The previous speaker also asked what the Government was doing about making sure that the councils followed the new regulations and rules. Firstly the member should know from reading clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1 that the councils must review their dog control policies and apply strengthened criteria to places where children are more likely to gather and where attacks can happen. 
A former speaker raised the question of little Carolina Anderson the girl who was attacked in Auckland last Christmas. She was playing at a park where there was an Auckland City Council sign saying “No dogs off leashes”. That was a case where a territorial authority was not carrying out its existing legal requirements. I am not criticising the Auckland City Council; it is one of the most proactive councils but in that particular case it was not carrying out its legal requirements. What we have done is give the local authorities a strong steer to look at the issue again and they are all going to do that. They are required to give effect to their new dog control policies by making new by-laws if necessary and they have to do it quite quickly—within 60 days. 
They have until 1 September 2004 to revise their policies. I hope they do that within the spirit of the new Local Government Act which means engaging with their communities in making decisions about for example which areas will be leashed areas—where all dogs will need to be on a leash—and which areas will be for dogs to roam free. I am hoping the councils will look very carefully at the criteria that are set in the legislation; they refer to areas that the public use widely and areas where children will be found—playgrounds schoolyards and so on. Those are areas where dogs should be leashed. 
The speaker was right; we have to give a strong message to local government authorities to carry out their obligations. We have now empowered them with greater ability to do that. We have given them a strong message about the safety measures to consider in drawing up those regulations. Together with that basket of new legislation is also a package on education for people about dog safety because that is a very important part of the whole new thrust of this legislation which in the end is about keeping the community safer. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In looking at Part 1 clauses 3 and 4 I point out that the Local Government and Environment Committee was guided by the fact that we had before us a survey of territorial authorities on dog control issues—both the interim report in March and the final one in June. In that survey the adequacy of the 1996 Act was in question. Some sections were agreed to by the councils but they were divided over whether the Act had adequate powers for identifying potentially dangerous dogs preventing incidents involving the same owner preventing dangerous dog incidents and seizing dangerous dogs. 
The policy in clause 3 is one that the committee felt could be realised out in the council world. We felt there needed to be more rigorous enforcement but the way in which it is done is still left in the hands of the local council. The policies that the councils are required to plan seemed to us to be reasonable. In particular clause 4 is an improvement. It requires the councils to report back on their dog control policies and we hope the Department of Internal Affairs’ template check of best practices will go with that. The end result for the councils will be a reporting system that is known by their ratepayers and residents and that is an improvement on that which is there at the present time. 
Since the committee reported back I have talked to several councils about the bill. They are in agreement that some of them need to do better. They are also very conscious of the fact that there is a cost issue as well. My last point is that it may very well be that when they look at the requirements in clauses 3 and 4 that the legislation in its final form will set out for them they will realise that the common good factor that has been called for by the people out there with regard to their demands for better dog control means that responsible dog owners should not be the only ones to pay the cost of meeting the requirements of this policy. In their planning for 2004-05 the common good factor should mean that the cost comes from the general ratepayer as well as from the revenue received from responsible dog owners. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I support both clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I thank Mr Jim Peters for raising the issue of the response of local government to the survey I put out last Christmas asking the councils all over New Zealand—all 76 of them that are required to enforce this legislation—how effective the 1996 legislation was. Frankly I was appalled with the response we got. A few councils were good record-keepers. Some were absolutely hopeless; they did not keep any records at all. We did not have any way of finding out how many dogs were registered in New Zealand because of the shoddy and inconsistent record-keeping of the councils. 
The legislation gives a strong direction to and requirement on territorial authorities to have best practice. There was a bit of best practice. I hope that at the end of this there will be best practice everywhere. The Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled requires that the councils record the basis of each individual classification of a menacing dog. It also provides that the councils give a copy of that to the Secretary of Local Government. So we are following it up. It will be checked on. That will help to ensure that central government and local government have statistics available so that they know what is happening with dogs in our community what percentage of dogs are registered dogs how many attacks are taking place and whether there are remedial steps that can be taken to try to prevent and mitigate against those attacks. 
Again I emphasise that this bill is about public safety. These are common-sense provisions that we hope will improve public safety. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Indeed clauses 3 and 4 are among the very important practical things the bill does. The Local Government and Environment Committee learnt that enforcement and the keeping of records around the country were extremely variable and that several territorial authorities had far more optimal keeping of records and enforcement than others did as the Minister of Local Government said. By ensuring that the territorial authority must report annually we are putting in a very important discipline that will allow benchmarking throughout the country. It is a great shame that we have so many territorial authorities. Hopefully the next National Government which comes into power in 2005 will attend to that. But despite that there is no doubt that this part of the bill will allow benchmarking throughout the territorial authorities in New Zealand so that those territorial authorities on the margins can be easily identified and brought up to speed in terms of ensuring that best-practice guidelines are adhered to. 
One of the other useful things that emanated from the select committee and the submissions was that it was appropriate that a publication of best-practice guidelines be available to all territorial authorities so that they could use it as the blueprint for how they would respond. Undoubtedly it seems to me that that is a much more democratic and voluntary way to impose standards of dog control than having highly prescriptive legislation as is implied by the microchipping aspect which the Minister is so hell-bent on imposing. 
 Certainly these two clauses clauses 3 and 4 of Part 1 are key to ensuring we have good standards of record-keeping in New Zealand. After all one of the difficulties of quantifying whether we have serious dog attacks in New Zealand has been the fact that there has been such variable record-keeping. The research unit in Dunedin has done a very assiduous job in that area and I understand that in the order of 300 serious dog attacks per year in New Zealand result in people requiring hospitalisation but many thousands of other dog attacks go unreported. Clauses 3 and 4 will indeed add that discipline by ensuring across New Zealand that there are far better standards that far better records are kept and that the territorial authorities that are on the margins—of which there are many—are pinpointed. 
I hope we will have ministerial oversight that ensures those records are kept and I hope the Minister will take a call in a moment or two to explain to Parliament how he as the Minister at present from 1 December will ensure that this part of the bill is followed and adhered to. I believe that it is practical and worthwhile. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 This is a rather important bill and I am happy to talk about Part 1—clauses 2 and 3. It is quite apparent when debating this bill that there is a hugely good intent in it. I do not think anybody doubts there are problems out there. But it is the applying of it in practice in which I see some real problems. 
An example of the requirements now to be placed on territorial authorities is new paragraph (4)(b) of section 10 which has been inserted in clause 3: “the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access ...”. What exactly does that phrase “uncontrolled access” mean? Does it mean the dog will be on a leash so that he is controlled while he gets access or does it mean the dog is uncontrolled on say a beachfront? Whether it be winter or summer huge numbers of people will be there. I do not understand what “uncontrolled access” to public beaches actually is. I assume there will be some dog inspectors at those public facilities checking to see whether the dogs concerned are controlled. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps explain that a little to me. Does it mean that when dogs are on the beach running free and chasing birds or sticks as they do they are in a very real sense not controlled? By very definition a dog that is taken for a run is not under absolute control unless the owner has been to a kennel club or that sort of thing and has instant control of the dog. My experience of urban dwellers especially is that they use voice control to try to control dogs in these public places and that is not a practical way of doing it. It is only members of the farming community it seems to me who manage to control their dogs; they control them in a much more disciplined way than do so many people who take their animals into what I would call urban situations. So I ask how we are to control animals that are allowed to roam free in those specific areas. 
I have some other real problems too. I was hoping to get a call on the earlier part of this bill where I could have talked about the concept—I think the Minister spoke about it—of education of the public and indeed of the dogs. Education requires an extensive period of time. Owners will not be educated nor will dogs in the very short time frames that this bill allows for so the exercise of having controlled animals in public places frequented by children is probably a totally impractical suggestion or requirement by this bill. 
There is also a requirement for the territorial authority to have regard for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners. What exactly is that and how in a practical sense will it occur? Will there be a park for dog owners and their dogs and another park next door or will the park be divided up by a solid fence that dogs cannot jump over? I do not think the practicalities have been thought through of how amenities will be provided for the public so that they can enjoy the great outdoors free from dogs—whether it be free from their faeces or just free from their presence. It seems logical to me that we will have to fence these areas in half to allow for both situations to occur. 
The cost of that alone will be very prohibitive and rates will go up yet again. If the Government is dead keen to promote this bill maybe some funding should also follow its passage. One of the problems that territorial authorities face is that although they are compelled to implement the will of the Government on any issue that may not be accompanied by an appropriate amount of funding. It always falls back on the poor old long-suffering ratepayers many of whom may not be dog owners so why should they have to pay? 
Those are the sorts of concepts I do not believe the Government has really thought through. It has not given a practical look at this whole situation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In this Part 1 I believe that clause 3 “Duty of territorial authorities to adopt policy on dogs” and clause 4 which inserts what will become new section 10A “Territorial authority must report on dog control policy and practices” will do more for achieving the aims of the bill than almost anything else we have in the legislation. The very crux of any law is how it is enforced and I think that all of us on the Local Government and Environment Committee acknowledged that. The Hon Ken Shirley said very early on in the discussion that in his opinion the major problem was that the current law was not being enforced enough and most of us would agree with that. It is probably a result of the fact that he has been living in Tauranga for a number of years that such common sense is beginning to rub off on him and why he is making such wise statements from time to time. 
Clearly it is councils doing their jobs and making sure they enforce the laws that have been passed by Parliament that will guarantee a safer environment for our families our children and everybody with regard to the possibility of attacks from dogs. The first stage is for councils to adopt a policy and this is an excellent process. I welcome the Minister’s amendment in his Supplementary Order Paper that foresees and makes clear the importance of enabling the public to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs. That needs to be to the extent that is practical which is what is contained within his amendment. I welcome that because otherwise we may be asking councils to do the very impossible. They can do only the possible and do the very best they can. 
In clause 4 the things that the territorial authority will have to report on are vital. That provision has been referred to earlier as we had the Department of Internal Affairs report to the committee on what was currently going on around the country. As the Minister has said and others have referred to some of the reporting was appalling. Without good information and data we cannot make good laws and if there is a need in the future for further amendment it will need to be based upon very accurate statistics across the country about what really is taking place. We may find that the situation has improved so much that in time we can begin to give a bit more freedom back to dog owners. As more and more dog owners become responsible perhaps we will be able to ease up on the requirements in this legislation. 
 I welcome these two clauses. I believe the most important provision is that the territorial authority must give public notice of the report because the best people to keep local councils accountable for their role and responsibility are the people those councils serve. A Big Brother Government will not watch over all the councils to make sure that they do their jobs; instead local residents will be able to look at that report every year and see whether their council is doing a good job. If the report is shoddy with plenty of holes and things that are not reported on then that council will be held accountable by its community and I think that is an excellent way forward. These two clauses are essential and will perhaps provide the most safety and security for members of the public. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Dog control officers dog rangers and dog control bylaws 
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. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 With regard to Part 2 the committee members arrived at a very sound set of clauses. They clarified for us the powers of dog rangers and dog officials to seize unregistered or offending dogs. One of the issues raised in the submissions was the need for consistency of enforcement. That call came from the SPCA in Auckland and from other bodies as well. Part 2 does that. It makes clear the ability of the dog control officer to go to the next stage after he or she has seized the dog. It gives reasonable rights to the owner of the dog but it also has a vision for the care of the animal meanwhile. That is what one would expect of a humane council faced with the problem of unregistered or offending dogs. 
Part 2 also clarifies the implied rights of all owners or occupiers of a house. That potential impediment has been overcome in the part we are debating. The provisions are sensible and there are no great problems in them with regard to the way they will be carried out in practice. I have already talked to three dog rangers on the issues in clauses 5 6 and 7. They believe that those provisions are an improvement on what was there before. They had further suggestions—which always arise after the event—but at the present time it is a reasonable and sane part for us to consider further. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 of this bill as other speakers have intimated is very important. Essentially it is very much about animal welfare. There can be few issues for New Zealand that are more important. I mention briefly the need to ensure more than adequate animal welfare rules and regulations so that we treat our animals appropriately in order to ensure the image that New Zealand has of being an agricultural nation that is reliant on animal products. There are always those who from time to time for whatever reason do neglect their animals. They either let them roam free or feed them in an inadequate way. There should be appropriate controls and powers for dog control officers—or indeed even neighbours I suspect—to come in and ensure that the animal is well treated with adequate food water and shelter. 
Reading Part 2 I could not help but reflect on the question of why cats are not also involved. I know we are dealing with dogs in this particular issue but I cannot help but think we are putting welfare controls in so that dogs get a good looking after when I am sure there are many cat lovers around this country who would believe there should be legislation for their little moggies and so on. However that might be for another day—God forbid! 
Larry Baldock 
: What about pet rabbits? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Oh and pet rabbits and all! I want to just emphasise the point that animal welfare is a very serious issue and should be treated as such by those in authority to ensure that as I mentioned earlier the image of New Zealand is not tainted by those who for whatever reason are inadequate in their care of animals. 
Clause 8 in Part 2 inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act that requires “dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purpose of providing permanent identification of dogs:”. This is one of the areas of the bill that will cause some real controversy. Indeed I spoke with a retired school headmistress last night who was very concerned about this particular issue. She has imported a Danish something or other. I asked her how big it was and she said: “It’s just a little wee guy.” and she said: “There is no way I am going to put a microchip into my dog.” 
Larry Baldock 
: She won’t have to. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Somebody else will do it for her I suppose. 
Larry Baldock 
: No it’s only the new dogs from 2006. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well the point is that after that time if she gets a new pup or whatever of this particular breed there will be huge reluctance by people to understand why the Minister believes that dogs of this size little chihuahuas or the—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there we go: “Dog-chip plan draws mixed reaction”—Mr Peters is just showing me one of the local papers. There is some real concern about the necessity for putting a microchip into the small Jack Russells—the ones that while they can be a bit snappy are not really the problem. The focus of this bill is always on the pit bull terriers and the large dogs—those that are considered to be dangerous dogs. But it emphasises the point that all dogs potentially can be dangerous to a very small child. To a baby a very small dog might be of some threat but microchipping them will not be the solution. Microchipping a chihuahua for example seems to me to be a bit unnecessary to say the very least but the microchipping of a rather large Dobermann Alsatian or pit bull terrier does have some merit. But the people who we demand should have these dogs registered and microchipped are the very people who will refuse to present their dogs for registration or to receive the microchip transponder so that they can be tracked and traced and the owners identified. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I want to make a few brief comments. First of all it is about dog control officers dog rangers and dog control by-laws and particularly the dog control officers and dog rangers are crucial to the success of this legislation. It is important that we have taken the time in the bill to give them some clarity and some additional powers so they can do their job; it is not a job I would like to have to do in this country given the number of wild and mangy dogs that roam the streets. So I trust they will be encouraged by some of the additional powers given to them. I know of one very happy dog control officer who was almost stunned with the number of amendments in this bill—little pieces of the existing legislation that those officers have wanted to see improved tweaked and adjusted over the years and he is very very happy that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done such a thorough job in addressing lots of these issues. 
Clause 5 introduces a new section 15 into the Dog Control Act including subsection (5) which provides: “All reasonable costs incurred in the seizure custody sustenance and transport of a dog under this section may be recovered as debt from the owner of the dog.” I think that is a very important part of this section because we often hear people complaining about how responsible people are penalised by those who are not responsible. At the moment a lot of the costs of dogs being impounded and so on are borne by those who pay their rates. So this section sends a very good signal that the costs of being irresponsible will be passed back to people by way of a charge or a debt and we should all take some satisfaction from that. 
With regard to microchipping as mentioned by the previous speaker it is important that the message gets out across the country and I am sure it will come out more as we debate microchipping later that in fact the legislation does deal only with new dogs being registered from 2006. People need not fear that their current pets will have to be subjected to this. It will be the new pups as they come into the world and are registered and vaccinated that will have chips implanted. Currently anybody who purchases a purebred dog will find that the New Zealand Kennel Club already inserts microchips in them for purposes of identification so that is not likely to be of grave concern to those who have bought their pedigree dogs. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 We support the bill. It is good legislation by and large but we are still concerned about clause 8 which inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act requiring dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purposes of permanent identification. The other day the Minister said that the cost of the registration would fall on too few dog owners and in fact the cost of requiring every dog to be implanted will fall on all dog owners. The cost of the registration would have been on all dogs anyway and the national register would have been on all dogs and it will be I presume from the commencement of this bill. I am not quite sure when the national register comes into force but I imagine that it will come into force from the date the bill is enacted. It is an issue that some people feel particularly sensitive about and I hasten to add that I am aware it is a very small device— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That will be more appropriately discussed under Part 4. We are on Part 2 at the moment which has four clauses. 
MIKE WARD 
: Section 20(1)(ga)—clause 8? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 5 to 8. 
MIKE WARD 
: We believe that dog control is quite possible under existing rules. I said the other day the offences that occur are more frequently about law badly applied not bad law. In fact the new law tweaks the old law and puts some important new pieces in. However dog control can be quite well carried out under the present law without microchipping. Our concern remains. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Probationary and disqualified owners 
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. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In reference to Part 3 the point just made by Dr Hutchison is correct. There was I believe an intention at the time to encourage best practice—in other words for there to be improved or better practice on the part of territorial local authorities. So clause 9 is a discretionary clause. But clause 10 regarding the disqualification of owners is an absolute provision. It uses the word “must” and in that regard there will be consistency of enforcement throughout the country. Several bodies raised the issue that there be consistency with regard to enforcement and that is there in clause 10. It was the intention of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the time that that be so but that the legislation be fair and reasonable. There are three strikes and it is after the third strike that people are out. If people are out after the third strike then they are on the bench for 5 years. That is what the clause states to a dog owner who has not been responsible and has not taken due care of an animal. I think that both clauses are fair and reasonable and deserve support. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Dr Hutchison raised the question of whether the legislation provides for coverage throughout New Zealand. I assure the member that section 29 of the Act already provides for disqualification throughout New Zealand. Dr Hutchison also asked why councils should have discretion over whether they can order a probationary owner to undergo dog education. Not every circumstance is the same so councils have the discretion to do that. They can choose to order that on a case by case basis and I think that is a very sensible approach. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I want to take a short call. I wonder whether the Minister may elaborate a little on what happens if a territorial authority—such as the one in Otago for example—does not have a facility where a person may “undertake at his or her expense a dog owner education programme or a dog obedience course (or both) approved by the territorial authority.” If I take my own situation as an example in Alexandra to my certain knowledge there is no such facility. There may well be one in Oamaru or Dunedin 2½ hours away. Is the intent of the bill really to ask people to jump in their car once or twice a week and travel very extensive distances? It is not like living in Wellington or Christchurch where there may be two or three of those facilities. I am not at all certain how many of them there are in my own region; perhaps I should have checked on that before coming to the Chamber. But I am perfectly certain that there is no such facility in for example Alexandra which is quite a reasonable-sized town. Nor is there one in Wanaka or Queenstown so we would have to go to Oamaru or Dunedin for training. 
That is a huge imposition on dog owners for what might have been a small misdemeanour on the part of a little dog that needs a bit of education or on the part of an owner who needs a bit of education. How will it be practically achieved if the facility is a good 2 or 3 hours’ travel time away? Is that a fair and reasonable request or demand to place on an owner? Has that been thought through? I am not certain whether it has. As everybody is aware the cost of jumping in one’s car and having a dog carrier or similar facility to attach to one’s vehicle to carry a dog long distances is a real expense. I would imagine that $150 would be attached to the round trip in many cases. Is that the intent of the bill? Again I can only reiterate that in the bigger cities of course there may be a number of such facilities but in smaller provincial communities I would be very surprised to find one or two at the very most of those sorts of facilities available to ensure that the territorial authority can in fact impose that requirement and that it can be met by the individuals concerned. 
I wonder whether the Minister may take a call on this issue. I am all for the education of dog owners and dogs; I think that is highly appropriate. But dog owners have to have facilities in their own districts in the first instance to allow that to occur. There may be an opportunity for an enterprising individual to start up dog training facilities as a result of this legislation. That remains to be seen. But if a territorial authority has a problem with a handful of dogs—say a maximum of half a dozen dogs during any one particular 12-month period—is that really worthwhile and what is the practicality of employing a dog training officer or running a dog obedience course? Again that cost will come back on to the poor long-suffering ratepayers who will have to front up for the cost of such a facility. 
I will leave the matter there and I ask whether the Minister will in fact inform me of how such education and training will be achieved if there are no facilities in any given district. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to insert before clause 9 the following clause: 
9AAProbationary owners 
Section 23 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (2) the following subsection: 
(2A) 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. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 25 of the principal Act after subsection (3) the following subsection: 
(3A)disqualification under subsection (1) applies in the district of every territorial authority in New Zealand despite the jurisdiction of the territorial authority making that disqualification. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28(1)(b) of the principal Act after the words “in possession of a dog” the words “or control of a dog in a public place”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Prohibited dangerous and menacing dogs 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 This part relates to two very importantparts of the bill. First it deals with proscribing certain breeds and stopping their importation into New Zealand. When we looked at the issue of breed bans we looked at overseas jurisdictions and saw how they dealt with the issue. The breeds that are proscribed in the schedule—the Japanese tosa the dogo Argentino the Brazilian fila and the pit bull terriers—are all fighting breeds and are widely recognised internationally as being dangerous to the community. They are dogs that were bred specifically for fighting and often for hunting large game animals such as bears and so on. So they are dogs that are by nature and temperament aggressive and that generally speaking pose a risk to the community. 
Other countries have sought to ban those breeds within their jurisdictions. We looked at their experience to see whether that was successful. We saw bans proved in fact to be very complicated because classifying a dog as a type—belonging to say a pit bull terrier type which has a very wide range of types within the breed—is extraordinarily difficult. The UK Germany and some Australian states had some enormous problems with litigation as territorial authorities tried to say that a dog was a pit bull terrier and the owner tried to say it was not. Those cases ended up spending long periods in court and costing the ratepayers and taxpayers of those communities a great deal of money often with results that were not very satisfactory for public safety because the dog was for example found to be not a pit bull terrier but was still an aggressive and dangerous dog. 
So what we decided—and I am pleased to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has supported us—was that we needed to make a statement about the danger those dogs present to the community and that we do not want more of them to come into our country. We have erected barriers to prevent them from coming into the country but we have also said that within the country people who own any of those four breeds have to take extra care to keep the community safe. Owners will have to for example muzzle those dogs and leash them in public and so on. We have avoided the difficulties that overseas jurisdictions have had with regard to the classification of dog breeds internally and that is why I as Minister and the Government did not go down that path internally. 
But we do not want more of those dogs to come into the country. We have a barrier there and a recognised veterinary professional has to sign a document stating that the dog in question does not belong to one of the proscribed breeds. The importation of those dogs has been from countries where veterinary officers are of a high professional standard—the UK the US Australia and some other European countries—so I have a lot of confidence that that will be a fairly effective barrier. The odd dog may get through the barrier—I hope it does not—but by and large that import barrier will serve as a fairly effective break on any more of those dogs coming in. Three of the four breeds are very restricted in their numbers in New Zealand. One in fact may not even exist in the country so it will not be a particular issue. 
Now what about universal microchipping? I disagreed with the majority view of the select committee over this issue. In fact I signalled when the select committee’s report came back to the House that I would try to persuade other political parties to think about this issue again and I am delighted that we now have some support on it. So Dr Hutchison was not correct earlier when he said that this decision was new even to the Labour vice chair of the committee. In fact I made it quite clear last week that we would do this. Why have I gone ahead with universal microchipping? It seems to me that if we are to have an effective national database where all new registrations are microchipped from 2006 onwards and dangerous and menacing dogs are microchipped from 2006 as well then microchipping has to be universal and it has to catch all dogs in New Zealand eventually. 
There will be a period of transition. Probably by the year 2015 all dogs in New Zealand will be on the database and that will then address that serious problem that arose when I surveyed councils last Christmas. I asked how many dogs there were in New Zealand and was told we were not sure. Nor were we sure how many were registered because there is no national database. There are different systems of record-keeping throughout New Zealand. A national database that all dogs are on will fundamentally address that question. Universal microchipping will also address the other issue that some Opposition members have raised today of how to track a dog that goes from say Whangarei to Manukau City and that has been a problem dog in Whangarei. How does Manukau City find out about that? At the moment it cannot do so but with a national database which the Government has said it will fund the Manukau City Council officers will be able to instantly tap in electronically—that is the modern age. 
We live in the digital age now. We move with the times and microchipping is a means of moving with the times. There will be instantaneous access to a standard system that uses the same microchips has the same data-entry processes and contains data in the same format throughout New Zealand. It is a logical sensible and modern way of dealing with that. The select committee wanted to partially do microchipping. They wanted councils to buy the gear and use it on just some dogs. Well that then actually raises an issue of cost. Why buy the gear and not use it in the most effective way one can which is with all dogs eventually being microchipped? 
 Some people raised the question of a little chihuahua and asked why that breed of dog should be microchipped. In New Zealand many pedigree chihuahuas Jack Russell terriers and all sorts of other dogs little and big are already microchipped. The New Zealand Kennel Club which is a very enthusiastic supporter of the microchipping of all dogs encourages its members now to microchip their dogs. Why? Because if people steal a dog—and pedigree dogs are very valuable and just as loved as the little moggie pet—microchipping provides instant recognition. A collar and tag can be changed; a microchip cannot. So identification of the dog is about safety for the owner as well as for the community. 
Animal control officers also told us that one problem they have with menacing and dangerous dogs is that the owner disputes it is his or her dog that is involved or that the dog has done that before. Tags again can be changed which causes confusion over identity. Some members will remember a particular individual dog that was held by Porirua City last Christmas and the long litigation over whether the dog had attacked. The owner said no; the animal control officer said yes. There was a real dispute about the identity of the dog concerned. If that dog had been microchipped there would have been absolutely no confusion about its past history and its ownership. Again microchipping is a sensible safety measure not just for the community and not just for the sake of a dog’s identification but also for the owner. We can find out instantly whether a dog belongs to a particular owner by checking a microchip. 
For those reasons I am a very strong and passionate advocate for the microchipping of all dogs. It will not be an expensive process. A microchip currently costs between $12 and $20. If a vet inserts it he or she will charge a reasonable fee—as a good professional should. But animal control officers can easily be trained to insert microchips. Indeed in my other capacity as Minister of Conservation I say that my departmental staff microchip kiwis kakapo and other extraordinarily endangered birds in our country without any problem. Those officers are not trained vets but they are trained animal officers. I certainly have full confidence that council staff if trained adequately could do this job at minimal cost. So it will not be expensive either. For all those reasons—safety relative cheapness comprehensiveness and moving with modern times—I think that having a national database is an excellent idea. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with prohibited dangerous and menacing dogs. It was good to see that in the Local Government and Environment Committee the words “potentially dangerous dogs” were changed to “menacing dogs” because after all even the tiniest chihuahua could be potentially dangerous under extraordinary circumstances—maybe when it gets a microchip inserted under this Labour Minister who is so intent on microchipping every dog in the country. 
In terms of the prohibition on the import of certain dogs there was discussion in the select committee as to whether that was appropriate for New Zealand. The select committee on balance agreed that it was. Undoubtedly the international statistics clearly show that certain dog breeds are associated with a far greater incidence of attacks that cause morbidity and mortality. Even though it is difficult to recognise those breeds once they have interbred—and that undoubtedly is a huge practical problem—the dogs listed in the schedule the Brazilian fila the dogo Argentino the Japanese tosa and the American pit bull terrier all do inspire in some people a considerable amount of fear and intimidation because they associate those dogs with many of the dangerous attacks and dangerous acts and with having characteristics that do worry little children or people who are not in a position to be able to protect themselves. 
I agree that it is absolutely appropriate that we do this now—we should have done it 20 years ago—and that we have a mechanism to add to the schedule by amendment not by Order in Council. I think we will deal with that issue later on. I think that having a mechanism to add breeds to the schedule by Order in Council would be inappropriate because clearly this measure is something that will evolve over a period of time and it should be scrutinised through the usual conventional passage of legislation rather than by having a quick-fire route as in the example of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I think it is also appropriate that there be a ban on importing the ova semen and embryo of those dangerous dogs. 
But the most important and contentious part of Part 4 is the microchipping provision. I am fascinated and concerned to hear that the Minister says that probably by 2015 all dogs will be on the database. Dog registration has been a problem in New Zealand for 150 years—in fact Rua Kenana was arrested up in the Ureweras because his dogs were not registered. I think the Minister is in fairyland if he thinks that all dogs will be on the database but he said they “probably” would be. 
It is very interesting to hear that even this very day he received an email from Colleen Begg registrar of the New Zealand Kennel Club begging the Minister to review the way he wishes to prescribe the microchipping of dogs. In fact just to go through it she stated this: “The provision in the bill as reported back in new clause 36A(3)(a) is preferable by ‘making the dog available in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the territorial authority’. We ask that you consider dropping the change in the SOP and stay with the provision in the reported-back bill. Our reason is that the SOP 167 is too proscriptive and will incur additional costs. The whole issue of public acceptance is seen to be dependent on keeping costs to an acceptable level. We are not convinced that every puppy needs to be seen by a vet nor that this can always be done at time of vaccination.” 
I hope the Minister will take a call and address the concerns of the New Zealand Kennel Club which has been supportive of microchipping but not in the way that the Minister suggests. I say that the vast majority of submitters and New Zealanders regard microchipping as quite unnecessary. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 4 is interesting because throughout the course of our deliberations and even up until this very minute almost the issue of breed and the ability to classify on breed characteristics even in the Supplementary Order Paper wholly belongs predominantly to one or more breeds. The whole issue of breed has dominated these sorts of discussions here and abroad as well. I think that the Local Government and Environment Committee overcame some of the issues. We were told that there are 77 dangerous breeds in the alarmist conversations we had with various people about breeds. We have overcome that issue and have come up with a pretty sensible end result in the language that is before the Committee. 
With regard to microchipping we as a committee moved for microchipping in respect of dangerous dogs. It was not until after we had finished our deliberations and I talked to people out in the industry as it were that I became concerned that we were setting up a very costly system which we had agreed to for only a few dogs as I said earlier on. We also looked at the issue with regard to some of the practicalities of microchipping because we saw it as an issue of registration. It does not have much to do with dangerous dogs in some ways. I hope very much that the technology can be developed further than it has at the present time. It seems to be eminently sensible that if we can flick a scanner at a garage door that is the same distance away as from my seat almost to the chairman and open it we should be able to do something similar for the dog ranger or official. If we can get the scanner to work at a distance of 2 metres away or so then that will enhance the whole value of microchipping particularly for dogs that roam or so-called unregistered dogs that roam up and down the roads and across paddocks. 
We were also concerned as was the previous speaker about the cost of microchipping. Therefore I was interested to read an article in the weekend press. I refer to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 and its analysis of its survey of “The cost of man’s dearest friend”. Any potential cost of once-in-a-lifetime microchipping pales in significance compared with the suggested total cost of maintaining a dog—that is $1500 to $2000 a year. So the cost of once-in-a-lifetime microchipping does not seem to be quite so significant. When we talk to veterinary surgeons and veterinary clinics we can see that the cost of microchipping is not as high as might be thought. If it were done on a national contract basis it would be even cheaper than the current suggested cost. I do not think the initial cost is a factor. The ability of a scanner—or transponder—to do the job from a distance is a huge help. That will result as it has elsewhere in the world in a more rigorous system of identification of dogs nationally—place by place. It was said earlier that a survey of local authorities found the consistency of enforcement was not good and that situation went right back to an uncertain base. So when the Government suggested it was agreeable to setting up the base the register and was hoping to maintain that with the support of local authorities I thought that was a reason to go with the proposal. It is not the end. It is the process that will have to be developed but 2006 is a long time ahead for planned universal microchipping if the practice is to succeed. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are delighted that the bill targets dangerous dogs menacing dogs and problem dogs. Although we will be supporting the breed-specific bans we do have some problems with them. The following breeds of dogs—tosa fila brasiliero and dogoArgentino—do not exist in New Zealand or if they do they are very small in number. It is unlikely there are enough to warrant worrying about banning them. However they are dangerous dogs. We have been told and the Minister admits that the American pit bull terrier is a difficult breed to identify. We are a little bit worried that other dog breeds that look like pit bull terriers may be caught by this legislation. They may be required to be muzzled or neutered when they are in fact not dangerous but just happen to look like American pit bull terriers—in spite of the fact that American pit bulls are apparently difficult to identify. 
The bill bans four breeds at this stage. It has been pointed out by the kennel clubs that Italy started off by banning four breeds but now bans 77 breeds. I notice the bill contains fairly strict criteria for adding new dogs to the list of banned breeds but I would be pleased to hear the Minister confirm that he will be applying those criteria fairly rigorously before adding other breeds. Microchipping may not be a huge cost compared with the overall cost of owning a dog. As Jim Peters said maintaining a dog is an expensive business anyway. But microchipping all dogs so that dog control officers can get better use of their transponders would just add to the cost. Most dogs will never have the wand waved over them. It will happen only to problem dogs or dogs that come to the notice of dog control officers. Although the Greens do not support universal microchipping in some ways it has advantages. Hunting dogs will get caught by this legislation and that will offer some protection to wildlife. It will certainly offer some protection in terms of sheep being worried by dogs that escape from hunters. I suspect that once hunting dogs are tagged hunters will make very strenuous efforts to locate their dogs when they are lost. The Greens have mixed thoughts about both these measures. We will be supporting the ban on specific breeds but we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of universal microchipping. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 The definition of “dangerous dogs” or “menacing dogs” is interesting. Those of us who have watched a television programme or movie starring a couple of Dobermanns tearing down a lawn at night running towards somebody popping over a fence and salivating as they do so will know it conjures up a pretty terrifying image of dangerous dogs. I have a little story of some people who lived in a house on our property some years ago. They had a Dobermann pinscher—that I think is the full name of the breed. Being a sheep farmer I was unsure about having that huge Dobermann on the property. The people said there was absolutely no problem and they told me what had happened the day before. They had a 2-year-old son or daughter who was playing with the dog outside. The child inadvertently reached up grabbed what I can only describe in this House as the dog’s unmentionables and gave them a bit of a yank. The dog yelped shot inside hid under the bed for the rest of the day and would not come out. But according to some that is a dangerous breed of dog. It was a huge Dobermann. 
It is an interesting exercise when one classifies all dogs purely by breed and says they are inherently dangerous. So too are Jack Russell’s; so too are any little snappy dogs. But to say that a Dobermann is dangerous just because it is a Doberman and just because it has been portrayed that way in books movies television or whatever is applying some sort of a driftnet to this issue. I know that many dogs are menacing and they look very dangerous. As a child I can well recall being scared stiff of walking down the street because of a rather large dog. I think it was a German wire-haired terrier a very curly-coated terrier and it had pink eyes. I can still see it. I was terrified of that dog but my parents assured me that it was totally harmless. So it is all a matter of what one perceives. 
Here we have legislation that is going to track these dangerous dogs by forcing the owners to have a microchip placed in the dogs in a few years’ time. I understand the Minister’s comments that stud breeders will think this legislation is a marvellous advance. They will know that the progeny of these dogs is absolutely genuine and that there is no falsifying of records. It will be of huge benefit to stud breeders whether the animals concerned are dogs or any other animal for that matter. It is a marvellous opportunity but again we come back to the fundamental point that the ACT party has been trying to get across and that is that this legislation will not catch those genuinely dangerous dogs and those genuinely dangerous dog owners. Surely these are the people we are trying to catch with this legislation—not the decent law-abiding people up and down this country who take their dogs for walks and treat them well and whose dogs become part of the family regardless of their breed. Staffordshire bull terriers look hugely menacing but are very placid. They are really marvellous family pets but if people cross-breed them with the pit bull therein lies the problem—and those are the people who are going to studiously avoid microchipping these dogs because microchipping means they could be easily caught and identified; both the dog and the owner. They are not going to do it. So we are imposing yet again extra costs onto law-abiding citizens and families who adhere to the requirements. It is all very well for the Minister and MPs on our salaries to say it is only another $30 or $40 or whatever it might be and that the fees are only a few more dollars. But to a lot of people another $30 to $50 is a significant sum of money and I do not think it is appropriate for us to say that it is not. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Part 4 contains most of the controversial provisions in the bill particularly the breed-specific provisions and the requirement to microchip. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard a great deal about those matters from the submitters. This breed-specific legislation is very different from the type of legislation in other nations—in particular the UK. Their legislation is often referred to as a failure or not working. It may surprise members to learn that the UK has no dog registration at all. I spoke recently with one of its Government representatives about our legislation and was told that they look longingly at our kind of common-sense legislation as a way of dealing with their problem. The UK has a ban on the ownership of a particular breed but that is not what we are proposing. We are banning the importation of four breeds but it is still permissible to own one of those breeds. That is quite a departure from the examples overseas. 
People who own the pit bull terrier type of dog will not be prosecuted or have the dog immediately taken from them. The bill provides that the dog can be classified as menacing. The only onerous result is that the dog would be required to be muzzled when it is out in the public arena. That is a reasonable ask of the owners of such dogs regardless of whether their dogs are cross-breeds. If a dog looks like a pit bull terrier it will probably bite like a pit bull terrier and therefore people have a reasonable expectation that in the public arena which everybody wants to enjoy they will not be at the mercy of one of those dogs having a momentary flash and reverting to its carnal nature and taking a piece out of somebody.  
The select committee has arrived at a sensible middle ground in this legislation. The public need to get conversant with what is required in terms of menacing dogs. Their favourite dogs will not be taken from them. They will not lose the family pet. If they are of the opinion that their dog is safe—that it is not like all the other dogs—then the only requirement is that they muzzle the dog when it is in the public arena. I welcome the Minister’s amendments on his Supplementary Order Paper in that regard—one of which makes much clearer the effect of the classification “menacing dog”—and the Minister’s further amendment to omit section 33E(1)(ii)  because we do not want the control of those dogs to be by leash when they are in a public arena. That will be a matter for the local councils to deal with. If councils do impose by-laws whereby dogs have to be leashed in certain areas then that will apply to all dogs not just to those that are classified as menacing. 
I particularly welcome the Minister’s amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper relating to such dogs particularly those of a type because we are dealing not just with the type of dog that is outlined in schedule 4 but eventually with all types of dogs that could be considered menacing. It is important that we make this exemption for those large and potentially menacing dogs—such as German shepherds Dobermanns Rottweilers and so on—that are involved in dog shows across the country during weekends taking part in obedience trials or engaging in a lot of good family activity. Where a council’s local dog control officer has classified dogs of those types as menacing—which in normal circumstances have to be muzzled when in public—they can be given an exemption for the times they are involved in dog shows because obviously it would be ridiculous to have these dogs all with muzzles running around the circle while they are competing. So I welcome that amendment on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
On the issue of microchipping the crucial issue is not so much microchipping itself but whether we have a national database that enables dog control officers to have access to information that is vital to them in the performance of their job. I welcome that happening once the Minister’s amendments are passed. Not only will mandatory microchipping of new dogs take effect from 2006 which will eventually lead to a national database but also— 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are some typescript amendments in the name of the Minister to his amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 167. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is there any chance of putting the amendments separately—at least the one regarding the compulsory microchipping? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has indicated that he wishes them to be grouped so that is the way it is being done. If the Minister wishes to change his mind that is up to him. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that we have one vote on the microchipping provisions and another vote on the dangerous dog provisions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [ 
Interruption 
] Would the member care to explain again the leave he seeks. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think what the member is asking for and what the Committee might like to do is to be able to vote on the microchipping provisions and then on the dangerous dog provisions. I seek leave to have a separate vote on the two parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are voting for the Minister’s amendments now are we not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes the Minister’s typescript amendments. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought we began voting on the amendments to the amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. I will put the question again because there appears to be some confusion. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to the amendments to clauses 14 and 15 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit new section 33E(1)(a)(ii) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 167; and 
to omit new section 36A(3) and substitute the following subsections: 
(3)Subsection (2) is complied with by the owner— 
(a)making the dog available in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the territorial authority for verification that it has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or 
(b)providing to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying— 
(i)that the dog is or has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or 
(ii)that for the reasons that are specified in the certificate the dog will not be in a fit condition to be implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner before a date specified in the certificate. 
(3A)If a certificate under subsection (3)(b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority the owner must produce to the territorial authority within 1 month after the date specified in the certificate a further certificate specified under subsection (3)(b)(i). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Other: Paul Adams. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Other related amendments 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 5 deals with other miscellaneous related amendments and encapsulates a lot of the issues that still remain contentious. I would like to note clause 30 which refers to dogs causing serious injury and to the increase in imprisonment from 3 months to 3 years and in fines from $5000 to $20000. The case of Carolina Anderson certainly highlights and justifies the reasoning that where serious injury has been caused and gross irresponsibility displayed then these penalties are far more appropriate than the older ones. 
I also want to note clause 39 and the regulations adding further breeds or types to schedule 4. I note that the Regulations Review Committee is in the process of having a review of such procedures as this covering a whole range of bills. I think it is also in the cervical screening bill. There are a variety of other ones that the committee wants to review because in principle it has said that this is a bad mechanism. That is consistent with the very bad mechanism and example the Minister has shown today in bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper that is confusing that the chairman of the select committee did not even know about and that he has brought it in without the consultation that was demonstrated by all parties when deliberating to try to make this bill worthwhile. That just exemplifies how arrogant this Labour Government has become. Here is a bill that has languished for 4 years. It took a crisis before the Labour Government finally took notice of it and it brought in a Supplementary Order Paper without telling anyone about it. It has also brought in a section such as 78A that the Regulations Review Committee suggests is totally inappropriate. 
However this part deals with a whole variety of things including the offence of failing to register a dog. As I mentioned earlier on it has been a problem that has plagued New Zealand history for over 150 years. Rua Kenana was finally arrested at Maungapohatu in the Ureweras for failing to register a dog. While the Minister might say that it is important to have a national database why has he not organised such adatabase over the 4 years he has had available to him? Suddenly he wants to bring in universal microchipping and has said that we have to keep up with the new technologies. In fact the new technologies are evolving. They are not foolproof they are expensive and they are surrounded by compliance costs. 
I see this as an example of the innate congenital reflex of a socialist Labour Government. It cannot help itself gaining central control to make up a national database and now to advocate universal microchipping. What will the next thing be? We will see the  
Brave New World 
 that Aldous Huxley talks about and we will have microchipping of children. That is not as far fetched as the Minister in the chair who is laughing suggests. A constitutent phoned me up and said that that was something he seriously thought should be done in New Zealand because in the United States and the UK the same argument had been put up because of children who had been abducted. I can just see that in the socialist reflex of the present Labour Government: once it has universal microchipping of dogs on it will go on to the next step—the  
Brave New World 
. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 As has already been mentioned Part 5 covers a number of small issues. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 167 has made a considerable improvement to clause 18—that is with regard to the failure of an owner to comply the word “must” has been deleted and the words “reasonable grounds” substituted. That is a more reasonable approach and is in line with the general thinking of the bill. As the part covers a number of fees and the fee structure and the issue of microchipping has been raised yet again I remind the Committee that this day in WaggaWagga New South Wales it costs $41 to microchip a dog at 6 months for life for a desexed dog it is $35 for life and for an undesexed dog it is $100 for life. The cost to date of microchippingoperative systems is not as high as one would believe. In our case it should be not much dearer because our systems like Australia’s are under the control of an officer with dog knowledge and ability. 
The only other issue I want to emphasise here is the leash and the subsequent cost if one does not use it. As the owner of a dog one must carry a leash in public. That seems to us to be a very sensible requirement. It overcomes some of the issues of strict enforcement and allows some ability to question the owner particularly if the dog is in a public place. Overall the range of amendments is sensible. They are more costly because they are meant to deter and they are part of a reasonable system of enforcement. To some the much larger fee structure for infringement might seem to be unfair but it is also in line with the thinking that the failure to register to maintain what is fair and reasonable with regard to change of ownership transfer and so on are all matters that are reasonably costly for local authorities and therefore that it will be adequate recompense for the problems and costs that those things incur. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 There are some areas of law that simply set citizens at each other’s throats. Although lawyers can laugh and profit from those they are not things to be proud of. It used to be that the Fencing Act was always seen as such a piece of law. What Parliament is doing with this bill will compound misery for people in New Zealand compound the distress of ordinary citizens against innocent council officers doing their job and compound the alarm of judges at being forced to apply law that brings the law into discredit. The little episode that people in Wellington remember when Toot the dog disappeared to the acclaim of most of the population is set to be multiplied by this part of the bill. 
This bill states even without the Minister of Local Government’s nasty little piece of beefing up that the kinds of dogs any ordinary family might have could be vulnerable to the complaint of a neighbour and be destroyed. For example the legislation now states that a dog owned by a person and known “to have attacked any person or any stock or poultry or property of property of any kind” now must not be allowed to be at large or in any public place or private way other than when confined completely within a vehicle or cage or muzzled and controlled on a leash. That must apply to just about every dog. How many people who have brought up a pup have not had it chew a shoe or bite at the wheel of a bike until it is taught better or chase a cat until it has learnt that it is not allowed to? Almost every dog has done exactly what section 62 states and if the owner knows of that behaviour as he or she must he or she is thereafter obliged to muzzle it. 
This bill probably will not affect the sort of people whom parliamentarians have in mind. It will not affect the gang member whom the police are too afraid to tackle. It will not affect the families who are overrun with dogs and do not bother to register any of them. This legislation will be used by neighbour against neighbour. It will be used by council officers against inoffensive families in order to meet their quota and the effect will be a change in New Zealand’s culture. 
Judges have been complaining about this legislation and the Minister and his officials know that well. I shall read a few of the complaints about the milder form that is the present law. Justice Randerson said: “The courts are obliged to apply the law as ordained by Parliament unpalatable though that course may sometimes be.” Justice Barker said: “The word ‘exceptional’ which is what is required to avoid destroying a dog that falls foul of some of these sections is a very strong one and indicates a very difficult test to be surmounted.” Judge Callander said: “I am saying that one of the worst things judges have to do in their job is to make orders to destroy dogs and it feels like I imagine judges in the ’50s felt when they had to sentence people to death by hanging. I want to simply state to Mrs … that no judge takes pleasure at all in sitting in cases of this sort. We hate it but our function is to serve the law and to return the matters according to statute.” Justice Williams in the High Court said: “The learned District Court judge’s deep uneasiness at making an order for destruction is understood but as he said it remains the case that courts now have no discretion about ordering the destruction of dogs that attack people.” 
We are now compounding the error of this law. In a frenzy of hysteria we are making a law that will change the culture of New Zealand. Families that ordinarily have dogs will be affected. I have been a cat owner. I accept that the neighbouring dog is likely to attack the cat if it gets a chance and that the cat will mostly jump on a fence and hiss at the dog; that is the way of nature. But now as these provisions go if I do not like my neighbour I can force the court to order the dog’s destruction. I can force the dog to be muzzled. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not mind the interjections from the clot from Invercargill. He can jeer all he likes. This measure will rebound on him. He has a very short future ahead of him. 
This sort of law should not be passed in a wave of good intentions. We ought to look at what the law actually does and the incentives it creates. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 5 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 28 be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 57(3) of the principal Act by omitting all the words after the word “destroyed” and substituting the words “the Court must order the destruction of the dog if the presumption that the dog is dangerous is not rebutted”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following: 
30Section 58 of the principal Act is amended by omitting all the words commencing and after the words “summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $20000 and must order the destruction of the dog if the presumption that the dog is dangerous is not rebutted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I believe I have in the order of 4 minutes and 53 seconds to speak on the schedules. Schedule 1 certainly demonstrates just how bad this Minister of Local Government’s perspective is in terms of priorities. 
Under schedule 1 the infringement fee for “Failure to implant microchip transponder in dog” is $500 and the infringement fee for “Failure to keep dog controlled or confined” is also $500. Which is the one that will contribute most towards preventing dangerous dog attacks? Undoubtedly it is “Failure to keep dog controlled or confined”. Yet we have the Minister insisting that New Zealand dogs are universally microchipped. It seems to me that this is clearly a case of the Minister’s mind his machinations his love for bureaucracy and his love for central control making his perspective get way out of line. The fine is $500 if one fails to implant a microchip in one’s pet chihuahua or whatever it is and $500 if one’s pit bull terrier is not controlled. That seems absolutely wrong. I think it is indicative of how this Labour Government has failed to look at the detail of this bill but instead has insisted on smothering it in bureaucracy. The next offence in schedule 1 reads: “Failure to keep dog under control”. The infringement fee is $500. How does that compare with “Failure to implant microchip transponder in dog” which also has a fee of $500? Certainly in terms of achieving the aim of this bill which is to prevent dog attacks that injure individuals there is no comparison. 
Why has this Minister gone against the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee and insisted on bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute that not even the chairman of the select committee a Labour Government member knew about? The chairman had not even read it. The Minister could not help himself—he slipped it in. He wanted to impose bureaucracy to smother the bill with bureaucracy. When one analyses it one finds that it is absolutely inappropriate that the infringement fee for failure to implant an unnecessary microchip is the same as that for failure to keep a dog controlled or confined or failure to keep a dog under control. After all we have clearly learnt that microchipping is unnecessary. It is not a priority and it is very costly. 
We note that schedule 2 lists the dogs that are subject to a ban on importation. These include the Brazilian fila the dogoArgentino the Japanese tosa and the American pit bull terrier. Again one of my concerns comes back to the regulations regarding how one schedules the new breeds. It seems incredible that although the Regulations Review Committee recommended that this procedure was inappropriate the bill before us shows us that the Labour Government prefers to see dogs added to schedule 4 in schedule 2 in this way even though this matter is particularly controversial. Surely all the checks and balances of the traditional parliamentary procedure should be looked at very carefully and maintained when one is going to add breeds to schedule 4. It seems quite incredible that the Minister chooses to ignore the advice of the Regulations Review Committee. Not only does he ignore the advice of the select committee but he ignores the advice of the Regulations Review Committee and I think that is very sad. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
:  
Schedule 4 in schedule 2 encapsulates some of the concerns about breed-specific legislation. Those concerns are still with us. Even as late as this afternoon at half past 1 we were talking to people about the potential impact of this schedule. I think they were not sensible to the fact that in the previous part there is—and this is complementary to schedule 4—the ability for a new breed or another breed or type to be categorised or classified according to a very set procedure. It includes consulting with and getting advice from local government dog societies animal welfare organisations and so on. 
If there are still people out there who are concerned about breed-specific legislation I say to them that we did not go the same way that other countries have. It is a very very small list of dogs and those dogs are very few in number. The American pit bull terrier does pose some problems with regard to the first cross. But we looked at that matter and the same criteria listed in section 78C in clause 39—the tendency of the breed to attack and to exhibit aggressive behaviour and the risks to public safety—would be factors to consider if there were some concern about the American pit bull terrier and if it were not dealt with by the earlier parts of the bill. 
So basically the new schedule 4 takes a realistic common-sense approach. There are guarantees in the present bill to reassure those people who are concerned about the “breed not need” concept. That the number of dogs concerned is few fits very well with the general common-sense approach that the Local Government and Environment Committee had. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the schedules. Hopefully the Minister of Local Government will answer a couple of questions that I have for him if he would not mind. There is a fine of $500 listed in schedule 1 for failure to keep a dog under control. Can the Minister show me anywhere in this bill a definition of “control”? Does it mean a dog on a leash or walking at heel or strolling along in front? What exactly is the definition of this word “control”? I can see quite a lot of conjecture by many in the Kennel Club and so on as to exactly what it means. 
I think members of the Committee might be interested to know that just an hour ago my secretary had a ring from the Kennel Club relating to a little story I had told about a child grabbing a dog’s unmentionables. I stand corrected; the term is “manhood”. I want to ensure that that is correct and I am grateful to the Kennel Club for that. Obviously the Kennel Club is very very interested in what is going on during this debate. I am sure it will be equally interested in the schedules. 
I find in the schedules descriptions of the offences that can be perpetrated against society such as wilful obstruction of dog control officers and false statements relating to registration. Where in this bill are significant fines imposed against the breeders of fighting dogs for example? Instead of $500 why not make it $100000? It seems to me that nowhere in this bill are there sanctions against the people whom this bill is desperately trying to pick up. The gangs are not mentioned. They are one of the big sources of the fighting dogs that cause so much damage. They use cross-breeding which makes it almost impossible for the dog control officers in the execution of their duties to determine exactly whether those dogs are one of the breeds mentioned in schedule 2. I suspect the bill will also start driving the breeding of those dangerous dogs even more underground than it is. It will make life even more difficult for the dog control officers and for the legitimate owners of dogs. 
Coming back to the schedules I note that the fine for failure to carry a leash is $100. We all forget to carry our driver’s licence from time to time. [ 
Interruption 
] Barbara Stewart says she is a totally law-abiding citizen. Well if one has a couple of vehicles one can leave one’s licence in the wrong vehicle from time to time. Again we are penalising the innocent when the real perpetrators of problems in this society seem to roam completely free. 
There is a $1000 fine for allowing certain dogs to be at large unmuzzled. Again the language in the bill is appalling. How do we define those “certain” dogs? Again it will be interpreted by some one way and by others a different way. I have no doubt that various territorial authorities will put their own interpretation on it. It seems to be a trait of this Government that it passes legislation that it then allows society or the courts to interpret; the legislation does not say what Parliament meant. Our job is to provide certainty. Whether in the Dog Control Amendment Bill or in any other bill we should be providing absolute certainty to the courts the territorial authorities or whoever it might be as to what Parliament wants. We should be stating precisely what a dangerous dog is or what a “certain” dog that must be muzzled is. There should be no ambiguity so that members of the public know exactly what the Government is proposing and so they are able to vote against the Government at the next election with even greater vigour and fervour. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments on the new schedule 1 “Infringement offences and fees” of the principal Act. There was quite a bit of discussion about finding the appropriate amount of fine for these classifications. It is important that the penalty should fit the crime particularly because the dog control officers are trying to work positively for the most part with people in the community. They do not want to have to impose a fine that is too onerous when they feel that people have not been breaking the law intentionally or purposely. It has been difficult to come up with the right amounts. 
I point out that dog control officers have an alternative approach. If they feel the amount is not sufficient to penalise someone they can take that person to court by issuing a summary offence and hopefully can have a greater penalty imposed thus sending a message to that particular individual that his or her behaviour is not tolerated. The frustration that many dog control officers have they tell me is that when they do that they find that the courts often impose a fine that is even less than the infringement amount so they have gone through that process for very little gain. I hope the new figures will also give a message to the courts about what the appropriate fine is when dog control officers have gone to the trouble of taking people to court to prosecute them. 
A couple of offences in the new schedule 1 were of concern to us. One was the increase to $500 of the fine for failure to register a dog. The real problem across the country is that many of the councils have not been imposing the old fine of $200 at all and people have been allowed not to register their dogs. If they are caught the councils simply say that if they register them at that point they will let them off. That is contributing to the large number of unregistered dogs in the country. People are not worried about having to pay a fine if they are caught. It is important if this legislation is to be successful and deal with the number of unregistered dogs that the councils mandatorily impose that fine. 
But we felt that $500 was a little bit too much. It is more than I think what people are fined for driving an unregistered car on the road. So I have tabled an amendment to alter that amount to $300. I have been advised by a dog control officer in Tauranga that that is a much more sensible and appropriate figure. That amount of fine would also apply to failure to keep a dog under control or failure to keep a dog confined. Dog control officers need flexibility in the way that they address the public. If they feel there is good will they do not want to impose too stiff a penalty. I submit those amendments for the support of the members of the Committee when we come to vote on them. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 42 the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 52A the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 53(1) the expression “500” and substitute the expression “300”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.