Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a contribution on this Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. So New Zealand First has looked at this legislation and we believe that it is somewhat of a mixed bag. I apologise to the House in advance—something of a dog's breakfast. The positives as have been outlined by my colleague on this side of the House—Ms Dyson has alluded to the fact that there are some positives with this bill. The bill does have a good intent. It seeks to get better animal welfare outcomes and I think that even though the number of prosecutions and the people that this bill would be applicable to isn't that great the number of New Zealanders that own dogs is significant. I know as a farmer and Mr McKelvie mentioned in his opening address that as farmers we're totally reliant on our dogs. So we probably as all dog owners but particularly as farmers with working dogs really have an affinity with our animals and want the best for them.So I think that we can say that the pound time that this would save potentially is a positive thing. It would also be a cost saving that won't come for free. There'll be a cost that will lie somewhere. It does look to free up the courts as has been said: 427 of those 557 of the 2015-16 cases were of category 1 and 64 of those dogs actually ended up being put down. But category 1 is actually quite—when you dig down into this—a broad category if you look at the sort of offences that are included in that. The three months prison which I think is the threshold for not being a category 1 offence is actually a really high threshold and we would argue possibly too high to be handled by community magistrates or justices of the peace. Many of them would suit that: failure to register a dog failure to advise change of dog ownership failure to advise change of address failure to carry a leash in public. Some of those things are reasonably misdemeanour-type offences which you wouldn't want to be dragging people through the courts and clogging up court time. So we respect the intent of the bill at that point.But at the top end of that range there are a number of offences that would cause concern: wilful obstruction of a dog control officer or a ranger failure to comply with the effects of classification of a dog as a dangerous dog fraudulent sale or transfer of a dangerous dog. So the people that are getting convicted of this under this Act are actually people that primarily have got dangerous dogs. As the previous speaker alluded to that is a real problem for our society. It's a health and safety risk. Since 2008 we've seen the cost of ACC from dog-related injuries go from $3 million to $4.5 million. That's over 14000 claims. So that is a significant issue that we are dealing with and we would like to see—I think before we could support this bill further beyond the select committee stage—a review of that category 1 to see if that's fit for purpose for what we're seeking to do.We in New Zealand First will not go soft on crime like it looks like the National Party want to do over there on that side with this bill. So we will be looking quite carefully to make sure that the categories are fit for what we're trying to do here. But we do support the intent of the bill. So we will support it through to select committee but we will be looking for those changes to be made and because the select committee is a wise one we expect those very sensible changes will come out of that. So we will support this bill to the House.