Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. That speech had me on the edge of my seat. I was more excited about the end of it than the start. But I too stand on behalf of New Zealand First to congratulate the member for bringing this worthy piece of publication to the House for ratification. New Zealand First will continue with its support moving forward. We do believe that it started off as a bit of a dog's breakfast—excuse the pun—bidda boom. I have to say running through the select committee process under stewardship from the member across there Mr Bennett that it's actually come out even better than what it was before it went in. Some people are at home waiting for a gap in these speeches so they can rush off and make a cup of tea because they don't want to miss a minute of these fantastic contributions this evening. They'll be pleased to know that there is actually some sense and sensibility in behind this piece of legislation. I just want to lament some of the comments already made in the House tonight about the character of the person bringing this piece of legislation forward. I too have had some great pleasure in personal interactions with Mr Ian McKelvie particularly on the farm—where he's known to be a good man who understands the communities and needs of farmers—but also out there in the hunting community although I didn't see him take a shot and he says he's not particularly good at the shooting. But he left that to myself and my wife and we at least brought some venison home for the family.There are dog lovers out there. They are a breed to their own—excuse the pun again. I am a dog lover. We have a dog Lulu—not as manly as Max but Lulu's probably more of a cat than a dog and sits in the window like a cat really does. So it's not a hunting animal; it is a pet. But again I have owned other dogs in the past where this legislation had it been there would have actually been of great help. I had a dog called Nira quite a large dog that probably would have been caught up under these category 1 offences because it used to escape like from Alcatraz and I'd find it down the neighbour's house. At one point it jumped through the neighbour's window—it was a breaking and entering offence—to get to the neighbour's dog not to hurt the dog but to play with it. It was just such a big bumbling idiot but a great dog to have none the less. New Zealand First as I've already said will be supporting this. It does actually do one major thing and that is unblock the courts from more pressing and important issues than dealing with category 1 offences which are those minor offences that dogs sometimes face themselves having problems with. We do believe that there is a need for this bill. It's not particularly complex. I acknowledge that around 90 percent of all dog control issues are category 1 offences. That's you know quite a large number of those and if we can take those out of our judicial system and allow our judicial JPs the role to manage and administer this process it would be a lot better.There is a difference between a JP and a judicial JP. Judicial JPs are a subset of the justice of the peace and I think people need to acknowledge those differences. I see I'd better wind my speech up so I don't have to do a carry-over. But the judicial JPs just to finish off my contributions are authorised to hear challenges to infringements in any category 1 offences if it's stated in the relevant Act. Judicial JPs are not currently stated to hear matters under the Dog Control Act but this would enable that to happen. Thank you Madam Speaker.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.