HOME   >   OUR MPS   >   CHRIS CARTER   >   SPEECHES

Speech to Parliament on the Select Committeee report on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)
05 November 2003



LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW REFORM BILL (NO 2)
DOG CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL

Mr Speaker, I move that the House note the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2).


The report back of the Bill represents, in my view, significant progress towards improving the emphasis on community safety in dog control.

Mr Speaker, the bulk of this bill came about after a series of particularly vicious dog attacks that occurred last summer. In one of those incidents, a seven-year-old child, Carolina Anderson, was almost killed when attacked by an uncontrolled dog in an Auckland suburban park.


The pain and suffering Carolina endured prompted community outrage. Following a review of dog control laws, and a detailed survey of local authorities, it became apparent that there were some significant improvements that could be made to legislation to improve public safety.

Consequently, Mr Speaker, the Government’s intention in progressing this Bill is to strengthen the existing Dog Control Act rather than to completely revamp it.


What this Bill does very well is to strike a better balance between the desires of dog owners to be able to enjoy their pets, and the rights of other members of our community, and particularly the children in our community, to go about their lives without fear of attack or intimidation by uncontrolled dogs.

Mr Speaker, there is nothing I would like more than to be able to tell this House that this Bill will halt dog attacks once and for all but unfortunately that is something it cannot do.


As long as we have dogs in our community, as long as we have irresponsible owners, some attacks will occur. It is simply inevitable.

There are, however, a number of practical steps that we can take as a Parliament, which if properly implemented and enforced by local councils, should significantly limit the number and severity of attacks.


Those steps are taken in this Bill, Mr Speaker. Local Government is given a full complement of tools to control the impact of dogs in our communities.

The Local Government and Environment Select Committee’s consideration of the Bill has resulted in a number of interesting changes to what was initially proposed by the Government. I think, in the main, these changes are sound and reflect many of the issues raised in the public submissions heard by the committee.


One of the most significant changes the committee has made relates to the issue of fencing. As originally proposed, dog owners were to have been required to securely contain their dogs on their property, and to provide unimpeded access for visitors to at least one external door of a dwelling.

Having carefully listened to the views of submitters, the committee has decided to require owners to confine their dogs on their property, when not under their direct control. But the committee has stopped short of specifying how dog owners should do this, so long as it is done humanely.


Mr Speaker, I think this amendment is sensible and practical and I support it. The change achieves the primary objective of the original proposal. That is, that dogs must be confined and not roaming the streets.

The Committee also proposes that the existing ability of territorial authorities to classify some dog owners as probationary ought to be retained. This classification was to have been removed from the Act under the Government’s proposals, largely because it appeared to be little utilised. However, a number of councils have successfully argued for its retention.


The Committee proposes that this classification remain in the Act, but as an “either or option” for councils to use in conjunction with disqualification as a tool when dealing with problem owners.

The Committee also proposes that councils should have a specific power to require such owners to attend courses in dog ownership or obedience. Again, I think these are sensible amendments, Mr Speaker, and I support them.

The Committee has also adopted a somewhat different approach to that proposed by the Government on the issue of microchipping.


The Committee supports microchipping but recommends that it be limited to just three categories of dog – dangerous dogs, potentially dangerous dogs (or “menacing dogs” as the Committee now prefers to label them) and those dogs, that are to be returned to their owners after being impounded. The Committee also recommends that individual territorial authorities be empowered to determine, for their own districts, whether microchipping is to be compulsory.

The Government’s view on the introduction of a system of microchip identification for dogs remains unchanged Mr Speaker.


We take the view that microchipping can only provide for a truly effective and affordable means of dog identification if it is applied to all dogs.

Most importantly, a system of microchip identification can only work effectively if it is linked to a national information database, and that database can only work effectively if linked to the introduction of universal microchipping.

I believe there are number of flaws in what the select committee has proposed on this issue.


The first is that the committee's proposals will require each council to purchase equipment to support microchipping for use on only a handful of dogs in each of their districts.

The second is that the on going costs of the database that should accompany microchipping will have to be recouped from just a small number of owners, making it almost certainly prohibitively expensive.


It is estimated that the set up costs for a national database on dogs would be in the order of $700,000 to $1m. The Government has indicated that it is prepared to meet this set-up cost because there are quite clearly national benefits from such a database.

But in addition to the set-up costs of the database there would be its annual running costs. These costs would amount to about 53 cents per registered dog per year if the database were to encompass all dogs.


That figure would be vastly larger if applied to just a few hundred owners, and it would have to be weighed carefully against the limited benefit of being able to track only a tiny fraction of the nation's dogs.

For this reason, Mr Speaker, I will be moving an amendment to the Bill at the appropriate time to provide for the gradual introduction of universal microchipping of dogs. I would like to think that the other members of this House, who are not part of the Government, having had the opportunity to reconsider the issue, will support that change.


I note that the SPCA, the Veterinary Association and NZ Kennel Club all support microchipping.

Mr Speaker, aside from the issues I have just outlined, the Bill remains largely as introduced. Under the provisions of the Bill, territorial authorities will be required to review their dog control policies and bylaws, under revised public safety criteria, to ensure that there is far less likelihood that children will be forced to encounter unleashed dogs in public places such as parks and playgrounds.


The Government has not gone to the extreme of requiring dogs to be kept on leashes at all times, when off their owners property, and again Mr speaker, this is something the Committee supports.

Under the Bill, dog owners will still be able to exercise their animals in public areas which are less likely to be frequented by children, such as remote beaches, so long as those areas have not been designated by a territorial authority as being prohibited to dogs or leash only areas.


Although this will not suit all dog owners, I think it must be generally acknowledged that this is now a public expectation, and in my view, by no means an unreasonable one.

The Bill now also requires that territorial authorities must report annually on their dog control policies and practices. This information should provide both electors and interested central government agencies with a far better idea of how individual councils are coping with their dog control responsibilities and whether the Act is being enforced on a consistent basis nationally.


The Committee has also retained the proposed new category of potentially dangerous dog, although, as previously mentioned, the description of this category has been changed to “menacing dog”.

Under the Bill, a territorial authority must categorise a dog as menacing if it is believed, on reasonable grounds, to belong wholly or predominantly to one of the breeds or types of dog listed in the 4th Schedule. All such dogs will have to be muzzled in public, and, Mr Speaker, where the territorial authority considers it appropriate, neutered. Dog control officers will also be able to add other types of dogs to this category if they are concerned about them.


The committee has supported the proposed clarification of the powers available to dog control officers to enter on to property to seize unregistered dogs or those that have attacked. These provisions are, in my view, among the most important in the Bill, Mr Speaker. They should remove the existing uncertainty over the precise nature of the circumstances in which a dog may be seized on its owner's property. These revised provisions will make it very much easier for councils to remove problem dogs from our streets.


The proposed new penalty regime for offences under the Act has also been adopted by the committee, with a couple of exceptions. Under the Bill most of the maximum court imposed penalties are to increase from $1,500 to a new maximum of $3,000. The penalty for owning a dog that causes serious injury is to increase from $5,000 to $20,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years. Instant fines or infringement fees under the Act are also to increase significantly.


Mr Speaker, I fully expect that these increased penalties will give those dog owners who habitually allow their dogs to roam, or who fail to register their animals, very good reason to pause and reflect upon the wisdom of those decisions.

One of the Government’s proposed amendments to the Act that has prompted a lot of debate concerns the proposed introduction of restrictions on the keeping of certain breeds or types of dogs.


Under the provisions of the Bill, four breeds or types of dog will no longer be able to be lawfully imported into New Zealand, unless they are certified as guide, hearing ear or companion dogs. The four breeds or types are the Japanese Tosa, the Brazilian Fila, the Dogo Argentinos and the American Pit Bull Terrier.

The select committee, after hearing a considerable amount of evidence about this proposal, both for and against, has not sought to amend this proposal in any significant way.


The Committee does however propose, after consultation with the Regulations Review Committee that the mechanism for adding additional dog breeds or types to the four already described, ought to be altered to provide for a greater level of public consultation. Again, I have no difficulty with that suggestion Mr Speaker.

The restrictions placed on these specific breeds or types of dog are not by international standards particularly onerous or unreasonable.

Those dogs already in this country that are wholly or predominantly of these breeds will not face destruction, as is the case is some overseas jurisdictions, but rather will be classified by councils as “menacing dogs” and be required to be muzzled in public.

As previously mentioned, territorial authorities will also have the power to require such dogs to neutered, if that is considered appropriate by the territorial authority.


Mr Speaker, these particular restrictions are unlikely to be endorsed by all dog owners.

However, the Government has a responsibility to the wider community, and particularly to our children, to take all reasonable steps to protect them from harm. The four restricted breeds are recognised internationally as powerful, unpredictable and potentially very dangerous. As a Government we take the view that, in the circumstances, it is far better to err on the side of caution on this issue than not. As we have seen in recent times, the consequences of inaction can be extremely tragic.


To conclude Mr Speaker I would like to thank the members of the committee for their consideration of this issue. The Bill that has been reported back to the House is in many respects a better piece of legislation for their efforts.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many submitters whose views on this matter are often very sincerely held, and who have participated so willingly in the select committee process.

 

• OUR MPs | 
• FEATURES | 
• LATEST NEWS | 
• SPEECHES | 
• PORTFOLIOS | 
• POLICY | 
• MULTIMEDIA | 
• SEARCH | 
• CONTACT US