Rodney Hide

Speech to the New Zealand Institute of Animal Control Officers' Annual Conference

Good afternoon. Thank you all for inviting me here today for the New Zealand Institute of Animal Control Officers’ 49th annual conference.

I appreciate the important job enforcement officers do ensuring public safety, and I am aware of the risks and dangers of your job.

Thank you for your work.

I am going to talk today about my first principles review of public safety around dogs.

Dog legislation is tough, always has been and always will be.

The dog control debate is a polarising one. It enflames passions on both ends of the spectrum - from dog enthusiasts through to those with a morbid fear of dogs. And to every shade of opinion in between.

A dog can be a loving part of any family, or it can be a vicious weapon used for destructive purposes.

It can be a worker’s tool, or a symbol of gang status.

And in some cases it can be all of these things.

This is not just a New Zealand problem, but a worldwide one.

As Minister for Local Government, the challenge falls on me to determine where we go from here. At this stage, I am only just dipping my toe into the vast amount of information on the subject.

There is much that I have to learn.

The Dog Control Act 1996 has been amended twice, in 2003 and 2006 to impose greater restrictions on dog ownership and dog breeds.

We introduced a class of ‘menacing dogs’, microchipping and heaped on the fines, for example.

Part of the reason for this first principles review of our dog laws has been the ad hoc approach to legislation in the past.

I want this review of the Dog Control Act to be more than a reaction to a recent attack, as tragic as such events can be. I want good legislation that balances the rights of the owner, with the rights of citizens at large.

I anticipate that this review will get under way at the end of this year.

The review has not started and the scope has yet to be established. We hope to get started on this in September/October this year, once our current priorities surrounding the new Auckland Council are out of the way.

I know there has been a lot of interest in this work, and I hope to use this interest and draw on the expertise of groups like yours, as the review progresses.

I also want this to be more than just a review of the current legislation. I anticipate the review will be a broader examination of public safety around dogs – asking the bigger, more fundamental questions about these matters.

It will involve looking at the underlying principles behind our existing legislation to see whether these principles are valid, whether they are achieving the desired objectives, and whether there is a better way of doing things.

I want to ensure that the current model is working as well as it could be.

I am concerned that the current regulatory regime is imposing burdens on responsible dog owners, while not preventing dog attacks or ensuring irresponsible dog owners are punished.

We don’t want to fall in to the trap of assuming that more regulation is the answer. I want better regulation, to contemplate different ways of resolving dog disputes.

One size does not fit all. We need to ensure everyone from the pet corgi owner through to the sheepdog owner - and those that don’t own dogs but have concerns about public safety - get a fair hearing.

We need to go ‘back to basics’ and consider such things as what problems arise when dogs and humans share the same space.

The Dog Control Act 1996 is currently one of the main mechanisms to try to ensure that members of the public are safe from problems caused by dogs.

As I mentioned earlier, there have been multiple amendments to the Act since 1996, usually in response to particular dog attack incidents. It’s not clear that they have actually improved public safety around dogs and, in fact, may have resulted in a greater burden on dog owners without a corresponding benefit to the general public.

Many of these changes have been piecemeal and reactive.

Good law is not made on the basis of emotion.

Good law is not made on the basis of unclear facts.

I am concerned that some key elements of the present dog laws were made in this way.

I believe that it is necessary to have a holistic approach when creating or re-examining legislation.

Put simply, we need to find the ‘sweet spot’ - the correct balance between public safety and the rights of dog owners.

• Have we got the balance right between protecting members of the public from harm and protecting the rights of dog owners?
• Are the current restrictions placed on dog owners effective, efficient and fair?
• How can we balance the need for national consistency with local conditions?
• How can we emphasise owner responsibility?
• Can we eliminate all risks? If not, what level of risk should we be looking at?
• And should decisions about this be made at central or local government level?
• What role should territorial authorities have in relation to public safety around dogs?
• What mechanisms should we use to try to ensure public safety? Which elements of the current regime work well and which don’t? Are current enforcement tools adequate? What new approaches might be introduced in order to improve public safety, without increased costs for the majority of responsible dog owners?
• What can we learn from other jurisdictions?

I would be interested to hear your views and that of your councils on the scope of the review, and understand that the sector, through organisations such as Local Government New Zealand will be contributing to this project.

Those present will have noted the problems Hastings District Council has been looking at after a seized pitbull was stolen from the city pound.

The dog was impounded for attacking another dog. The Dog Control Act specifies that any impounded dog must be held for seven days before the council can destroy the animal. The owner had not registered the dog – it wasn’t neutered, muzzled in public or even properly under control when it attacked.

The council is pushing for greater powers to destroy dogs involved in attacks without that waiting period.

It may be a legitimate request, it may not. The review will look at issues such as this. Certainly the owner’s behaviour here in breaking and entering suggests that he is far from a responsible dog owner.

On a personal note, I support a greater emphasis on personal responsibility for dog ownership when it comes to our dog laws.

Dogs and dog owners are now more controlled in most cities than ever before, and dog owners’ freedom to enjoy the companionship of their dogs has been restricted. I get concerned when I hear about the arcane rules and fines that force responsible dog owners to move from their homes or give away their beloved pets.

There is anecdotal evidence that councils have restricted dog owners to an extent that goes beyond the removal of significant threats to others.

In saying this, I do believe that people have a right to be protected in their own property and in public spaces from wandering dogs.

People should also, for example, be protected from dogs that may threaten or bite them.

Drivers certainly should not have worry about wandering dogs on busy roads.

Residents should not have dog noise ruining the peace and quiet of their homes.

I think it is reasonable that people whose dogs soil public or other people’s private property should clean it up.

For councils, ensuring public safety while also respecting the rights of dog owners can be a difficult balancing act. The challenge for councils is to hold irresponsible dog owners to account without putting onerous restrictions on responsible dog owners.

I am particularly interested in how we can best utilise the dog control tools available.

We can all agree that your time is better spent working on the big problems in animal control, rather than wasting your time chasing poodle owners for not having their dogs on a leash.

Dog registration will also be looked at in the review. I recognise that the cost of registration poses an issue for many dog owners and may pose as a disincentive for many owners. There are of course those that don’t even bother – how can we increase compliance? Does this mean the registration system is flawed?

The review will also consider the National Dog Database. This is used by local authorities to keep track of menacing and dangerous dogs who are moved from area to area. It also provides useful data about dogs and their breeds.

I expect the review to examine whether or not the costs of the National Dog Database justify the benefits which are derived from it.

Breed specific legislation is always a tough call, and I’m not an expert in this area.

By this I mean, is a certain type of dog inherently dangerous? Or is it the thug that beat and tortured this dog into a vicious weapon to blame?

I imagine there are many of you with varying opinions on this issue.

International research into what makes a dangerous dog is also inconclusive.
But certainly a dog that is raised to be vicious and is left to roam the streets because it is insufficiently secured on private property is a ticking time bomb waiting to go off.

We also have the problem of what constitutes a breed when a dog has been crossed with multiple other breeds.

The Huntaway, for example, is New Zealand’s contribution to the international dog breeding community. It is a dog crossed with many other breeds to produce the intelligence and barking traits necessary for sheep herding. At what point does it become its own formal breed? This is still being debated internationally, and the breed is not formally recognised by any kennel club.

Locally, you have had problems with different dog breed legislation across different governance boundaries.

You all know the story of Helena Boag, who adopted her dog Jaydee from the Napier City Council’s dog pound. It was listed as predominantly a Labrador, while Hastings District Council classified it as a pit bull, and scheduled it for destruction.

I sympathise with both councils. It can be tough to make these breed determinations. I also sympathise with the owner who neutered and vaccinated the dog and was only trying to find an unfortunate animal a nice home. They couldn’t find the money to go to court to argue semantics, but fortunately the dog was re-homed outside the district.

Ultimately, this situation comes down to opinion – one mans Labrador is another’s pit bull potentially.

Now how do you legislate for this situation? I’m sure everyone in attendance has their opinion, but this is just another one of those situations where we don’t have a clear answer.

Do we need to look at country wide legislation, or is it best left to individual councils to pass their own bylaws?

Like registration and the National Dog Database, microchipping provokes much debate. It may help owners who lose their dogs and could assist local authorities in reuniting dogs with their owners. However, like the National Dog Database, we need to look at applying a strict examination of its effectiveness - whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

A responsible owner, for example, traditionally would put a dog collar on their dog with their contact details – taking personal responsibility for their dogs. Is a high tech, expensive, state enforced chipping regime any more effective?

The National Dog Database and microchipping systems are part of a package of enforcement powers for councils.

However, these tools by themselves are not intended to stop dog attacks. Are these measures good value for money? Does it help us deal with the worst criminal use of dogs, particularly by gangs?

Because of your expertise and hands on experience, I need your feedback and involvement on the effectiveness of microchipping and the National Dog Database.

The Department of Internal Affairs will also continue to support school programmes that teach children about safety around dogs. Educating children about dog behaviour and safety around dogs can give them some important tools to use when they encounter dogs.

To summarise, I want the overall goal of the first principles review of public safety around dogs will be to ensure that dog control legislation strikes the correct balance between the rights of dog owners and the safety and well-being of the public.

I am happy to take your questions now.

ENDS

© Scoop Media