Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Madam Speaker may I just begin by acknowledging the hard work that has been done in the last few days by the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern; the Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges; and the MPs who come from the part of the country that is affected by the eruption Tamati Coffey Kiritapu Allan and of course yourself. At times like this we join together and oddly enough we join together on this bill.So from a very large and very important matter to what some people have described as a very small matter and a small bill. I suggest that contained within this allegedly small matter and small bill there are things that concern small people like myself and others who are perhaps somewhat nervous around dogs especially large dogs. This bill does speak to some of those concerns. I quite like dogs—dogs that are under the control of their owners. I grew up on a farm in farming territory myself and of course the dogs that I was around were sheep dogs who were very much under the control of my uncles and my cousins. So that was an expectation I always had that dogs would be under the control of their owners—even the small yappy dogs. So for someone to find a large dog running loose running uncontrolled or dogs that are not clearly associated with a person well that can be a frightening and distressing or perhaps even just a nervous-making experience. Of course as Mr Muller noted before those of us who go knocking door to door often find that dogs can be a little bit worrying. So there is good reason to control dogs but it does seem sometimes that the offences that people commit with respect to dogs have ended up not being tried for a long time or have ended up with dogs being impounded for a long long time. There is a problem here that is to be solved and Mr Ian McKelvie has come up with a very sensible suggestion which most of this House agrees with that the small and minor offences should be overseen by judicial JPs. So technically what's happening is that some of the offences under the Dog Control Act that are category 1 offences are now going to be heard by judicial JPs. Category 1 offences are defined in the Criminal Procedure Act and are offences that—basically infringement offences. They're not punishable by a term of imprisonment. They are infringements. They attract a fine. But in terms of the Dog Control Act for the people who are watching the sort of offences that attract those infringements they're mostly in Schedule 1 of the Act. They're offences like the Wilful obstruction of [a] dog control officer or ranger" the "refusal to supply information or wilfully providing false particulars" "Failure to comply with [a] bylaw" "Failure to implant [a] microchip transponder in [a] dog" a "False statement relating to dog registration" "Falsely notifying [the] death of [a] dog" or the "Failure to register [a] dog". A lot of them are quite small offences and they are quite technical in nature but they do go to the control of dogs and so they do need to be dealt with. The one that amused me was the "Failure to carry [a] leash in public". I'm just assuming that's "carry [a] leash in public" when you are accompanied by a dog not just a failure to carry a leash in public at all. Even so they are small offences and it's really worth noting that most dog owners are good dog owners. Most dog owners do comply with these requirements most of the time as much as they are able to. But when someone doesn't comply it does need to be dealt with and that has resulted in as you know a backlog in the courts and that leaves owners in a state of waiting for their case to be heard and in some cases it leaves dogs impounded. Now dogs are—they're people people. They're people dogs. Dogs seem to love their families. I'm sure you've possibly heard the phrase the saying that dogs are slaves; cats have staff. What it indicates is not necessarily that one type of animal is better than the other but dogs are deeply attached to their families and so to be impounded is actually pretty rough on the dog. So this is a way of solving a couple of problems. It solves the problem of the judicial backlog and it solves the problem of the humanity of keeping dogs impounded. It's a very sensible measure proposed by a sensible man.So I am delighted to be able to stand and support this bill at its third reading to have set out the reasons for it and say actually this is just common sense. With that thought like the previous speaker Mr Hamish Walker I'd like to just compliment Mr Ian McKelvie on this and say that I too know Ian and his wife Sue having run against Ian in Rangitīkei in 2014. He is a true gentleman and I trust he is doing well. Madam Speaker I commend this bill to the House."