McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It's an absolute delight to stand here and speak in support of the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill—the only gentleman on the other side of the House in my view. Ian McKelvie is one of life's gems. I say that because of two experiences that I've had with him. One was with the previous bill that he sponsored which hit a bit of a stall and I was very grateful to be able to work with him and to get that across the line.The other was when I just like Kiritapu Allan who mentioned it in her speech went on a parliamentary cricket trip with Ian McKelvie. What a gem he was to that team. There was one instance—and this is relevant to a contribution in his speech—where we came across a character at a pub who was very annoying and said some things that we didn't appreciate. When he left—Clayton Mitchell: Did he get thrown out?KIERAN McANULTY: No Clayton he did not get thrown out. What we said when he left—we made our views very clear about this bloke; we didn't hold back. But Ian McKelvie said Well that was an interesting character." which I note was exactly the same word he used to describe David Bennett the chair of the Primary Production Committee who incidentally as chair of the select committee you'd expect would want to do a full speech on something as important as this not a 1½ minute contribution. He might be happy with 90 seconds but I imagine that everybody else is not.This bill is hugely important because it will reduce the time it takes for certain charges to be heard under the Dog Control Act 1996 and it will improve the welfare of dogs involved in prosecutions under the Dog Control Act by reducing the time that they spend in impounding facilities while proceedings are carried out. I'm not too sure if that was the motivating factor in this bill but it is certainly an important factor that comes from this idea.The Labour Party is very happy to support it for three reasons. It does improve court efficiencies; as I mentioned it improves the welfare of dogs; and it reduces the burden on pound facilities where the dogs are typically held for the duration of proceedings at the owner's cost and actually a burden particularly to the smaller district councils around our country like those where many of us on this side of the House live.The bill allows judicial justices of the peace to hear category 1 offences not punishable by imprisonment under the Dog Control Act 1996 to reduce court processing times. Now if we're focusing on court efficiencies it's really important to note that in the past several years District Court judges have found themselves under strain responding to more category 3 offences and tighter bail laws that we saw under the previous Government. As mentioned in my colleague Kiritapu Allan's speech there has been a significant increase in cases from around 28000 in 2013 to 33000 in 2016-17. That is a significant jump.Kiritapu Allan: It's huge.KIERAN McANULTY: It is huge. The question we need to ask ourselves: are we comfortable with court resources being applied to things like category 2 dog offences when they have been under such strain for such a long time?An example which I was particularly interested in was that the Family Court has been placed under considerable strain under the last nine years—primarily in my view because of National's 2014 family law reforms. So there are significant backlogs and a massive increase without notice in urgent applications. This puts pressure on the Family Court and on families and what we've seen as a result of that is that in May 2018 the Chief District Court Judge referred to a stretched judicial workforce and has been forced to redeploy judicial resource from the criminal jurisdiction to the Family Court to address those changes that were put in place in 2014. What this bill will do—and again I'm not sure if this was the main motivation but it is definitely a positive impact if this passes—is it will reduce the number of issues that judges have to decide on making it more effective and efficient for everybody. So well done to Ian McKelvie for that.I touched on the welfare of dogs and there was an example of my dog Max. I miss Max. I had to give Max away when I got this job you might be distressed to know because I was worried about his welfare because I wasn't home long enough. I miss Max but he's with a lovely family in Gladstone. The thing is that Max liked to run away; it was his thing. We got him from an old lady in Wanganui who said he was a lovely dog—she just neglected to mention that he liked to run away but we'd got him by that stage once we'd figured it out. In fact he was so good at escaping we once had him at a kennel and he managed to escape. Before he escaped she said that there had been no escapes in this kennel which was ideal for Max. She looked out the window and she saw Max running down the road and then she saw six dogs chasing Max. So not only did Max escape; he took six dogs with him. So he was very good at escaping.One instance when he escaped when he actually did end up in the pound was the very first day we had Max. He disappeared and they found him in the local Wairarapa College paddocks where they do their agricultural training covered in blood. We thought "That's the end of Max." but it's all right he didn't get any lambs—he was in the afterbirth. But it took a wee while for them to determine that he'd been in the afterbirth so he was in the pound for quite some time at some cost to us. So that's why that story is relevant to this bill.So what we will find with this bill that looks to bring in and reduce the burden on courts is that in the case of Max—the Max case where he was covered in blood—it would have been dealt with much more efficiently and much quicker if the provisions proposed by this bill were in place.So the question that is on the edge of your tongues after hearing from the chair of the Primary Production Committee and not hearing much at all—perhaps I should do his job and explain what is in this bill and what it does. A category 1 offence not punishable by a term of imprisonment would be placed under the jurisdiction of two or more judicial JPs. This makes sense to me. So for example for failing to register a dog under section 42 of the Act or failing to keep a dog under control section 53—why should they go to a court judge you ask. A very good question. This bill provides the answer. Now of course higher level offending would remain under the jurisdiction of District Court judges. That's good. So for example dogs causing serious injury that's section 58(c) there's no way that that should be placed with a JP. That is a very serious offence so we can't just be flippant. We can't just be dismissive and say all dog offences should go under the JP. This is a very balanced approach. Some other examples just to reassure those who have concerns about this bill would be: failing to comply with the effects of a dangerous dog classification section 32; dogs attacking persons or animals section 57; and failing to provide care food shelter and exercise section 54. I'm very pleased about that one in particular because we should never take a light approach. [Bell rung] So soon! Shivers time does fly when you're having fun. The thing is that we should never dismiss the crucial obligation on all of us as owners of pets to look after their welfare and I'm very pleased to see that that particular aspect has been excluded from the provisions of this bill. Dogs rushing at persons animals or vehicles; orders relating to dogs seen worrying stock—that's very serious; allowing dogs known to be dangerous to be at large unmuzzled and possessing a dog in contravention of regulations under the Act—all of those will remain under the jurisdiction of the District Court. Now there were some changes that came from the select committee process Madam Speaker and I know you're dying to hear them. Unfortunately I've only got a minute so I'll be quick. The select committee recommended that some types of offences are excluded and others are not included to be heard by justices and a good example is the category 2 offence to ensure that a dog receives proper care and attention and adequate exercise should not be an excluded offence. And for consistency—and this is because these offences include a legal test—the following offences should be excluded: dogs rushing at persons like I mentioned and in particular stock. Now when we thought that Max had chased stock we were very embarrassed because that is a hugely serious offence and we would have had no qualms in seeing him put down if he was found guilty. But as we now know Max is innocent and that's a very good note to end this speech on. Thank you very much for indulging me. Once again I'd like to congratulate Ian McKelvie for putting forward this sensible and rational approach to dog control."