Webb Duncan; Menéndez March RicardoDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair and if I can have your indulgence I'd just like to say: [Member uses New Zealand Sign Language] congratulations to the Deaf Society of Canterbury for their 100-year anniversary—all right! Hon Members: Yay!Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I must say I was a bit nervous and awkward having a go at that so it's great to see that this bill is making lives a little easier. But I would invite the member just to talk to Supplementary Order Paper 145 that has been tabled in the name of Penny Simmonds. Certainly the impression that I have is that it's a little loose probably and it doesn't look like it's had perhaps the consideration and thoughtfulness that is necessary. Now I'm not saying it's ill-founded in principle but we have a workable bill here that makes a great change and I'd just be interested in the member's thoughts because at the moment I'm yet to be persuaded that the proposed amendment which broadens the definition which is in the principal section section 2 in clause 4 of the bill is really an effective amendment and a necessary amendment and one that doesn't perhaps create more problems than it solves. So if the member would like to address that that would be much appreciated.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. I'll just go back to the previous member's question and refer members of the public who may be tuning in for the first time to speeches in the first and second reading where I think we traversed very thoroughly about the mahi that disability assist dogs do and perform. They enable people to participate in their societies. They can also perform lifesaving duties for people who have seizures. And in terms of what we are very much doing in the Act it's replacing guide dog" with "disability assist dog" because it does have a broader definition. But again if somebody is watching here for the first time I think there are very thorough explanatory speeches in the first and second reading so I would be loath to use precious time to discuss a member's bill to traverse something we have done for many hours. I cannot understate the importance of the duties that disability assist dogs provide for the community but I also understand that other members have an interest in discussing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145 put in by Penny Simmonds who hopefully is joining us remotely but I can't really tell. What she was looking for is to basically expand the language in section 2 in clause 4 of the bill to also include not just disability assist dogs that have been trained or are being trained or have been certified as trained to assist a person with a disability by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996 or by a private trainer recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996. I think this is something that organisations like the Human Rights Commission encouraged us to explore—encouraged us to broaden the sorts of work animals that could be included in the Human Rights Act for the purposes of supporting disabled people and enabling them to participate in their communities. I do note the Human Rights Commission also encouraged any changes to have broader consultation with the community. So it is unfortunate that this SOP was brought I guess so late into the process because that consultative process wasn't able to happen. But I do think that the language is considered enough in terms of enabling both the guarantee that there will be a degree of discipline and acknowledging as well that if this SOP was to go through further work would be have to be done by different departments to ensure that."