Twyford Phil: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Twyford Phil: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
[Volume:673;Page:19639] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is appropriate to congratulate the Associate Minister of Local Government. I think this is the first order or bill that the Minister has brought to the House. Is that appropriate? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Very appropriate. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I thought the pronunciation of the different dog varieties was quite superb. We on this side of the House support Government motion No. 3 about the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. I think it is self-evident that this is a good appropriate and logical move to add this menacing breed to the schedule of dogs contained in the Dog Control Act that pose a threat to the citizens of New Zealand were they to be let loose on the streets of our towns and suburbs. 
I want to use these few minutes as an opportunity to say that we have a problem in our country with dog attacks on innocent citizens. Only recently we had a string of attacks in May. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 reported that two small girls suffered terrible facial injuries in separate dog attacks. A 2-year-old girl had surgery at Whakatane Hospital to repair her face after being savaged by a pit bull terrier. Earlier in the day a 4-year-old girl was viciously attacked by a bull mastiff. She faced multiple operations to rebuild her face. The attacks capped a string of horror maulings in the past 10 days including one that left a Bay of Plenty woman scalped. Other attacks saw a woman set upon by a pack of pig dogs and a rescue of a baby girl by her 5-year-old sister when a pit bull invaded their home. 
We have a problem in this country with dog attacks on innocent citizens in our streets. We have a problem but we have a Minister of Local Government who does not seem to know what the appropriate response is from a Government to this kind of problem. The Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide said recently: “I am not sure that people with an irrational fear however real of dogs have a right to require the physical restraint of all dogs in public places.” Every time a citizen gets attacked by a lethal or menacing dog around New Zealand and every time some 5-year-old has his or her face ripped off by a pit bull terrier Rodney Hide announces that he will do a review of the dog control laws. That is all he knows how to do. He has been announcing the same review for the last 2½ years. Every time there is a headline about a dog attack that Minister offers a review. But the trouble is that he sends very mixed signals about what he intends to do. In October last year he addressed the Companion Animal Conference and he said on this very issue of dog attacks on citizens: “Perhaps there are ways to encourage individuals to resolve their problems without the need for regulation—for example: by educating owners about dog behaviour and public education about safety around dogs.” Well I ask this House whether those kinds of signals being sent by the Minister Rodney Hide are any consolation to the parents of that toddler in Whakatane who was severely injured by an attack on an innocent child by an out-of-control dog. 
We on this side of the House tried in 2008 to bring in dog control legislation that would have enacted a stricter regime on the regulation of lethal and menacing dogs. We proposed that lethal breeds already in this country would be dealt with not just dogs that have yet to be imported. Members of that side of the House—Rodney Hide and National members—voted against it because they said it was the nanny State interfering in the lives of New Zealanders. They rejected a practical measure to control vicious lethal and menacing breeds of dogs which are a menace on the streets of New Zealand. They rejected it as a nanny State measure.  
Now that they are in Government I call on the members on that side of the House to rethink their position on this issue and consider whether we should have a cross-party consensus in this House about tougher regulations of lethal and menacing breeds. I think it is time that we considered that and I call on members of the House to respond in this debate.