Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a call to speak to the Policing (Killing a Police Dog) Amendment Bill a bill that is really about the maximum sentencing for this offence which would increase the maximum prison sentence from two to five years. I also do want to acknowledge the intent that's given rise to the bill which I do believe has come from a really good place and is about recognising the significant and tragic loss of those dogs who have been killed. It is about acknowledging what they meant to those handlers and to the families who have cared for them as well. When I learnt that I was speaking to this bill I also reflected on the stories of police dogs who had passed not in tragic circumstances but who have been honoured in New Zealand media in some ways such as the dog Ike who passed over after a long career of service last year so we as a New Zealand community are a community who hugely respect the important role that police dogs play in our police force. But I do think we also need to recognise that the intent that this is coming from is really about deterrence. As my colleague Ginny Andersen has already spoken to there are practical reasons for why we aren't supporting this through to select committee at this stage—the biggest of course that we don't believe that this would act as a deterrent; that the provisions in place therefore are sufficient; and because it won't act as a deterrent then we simply don't think this would be an effective use of our House time to send it through the select committee process.Because we're talking about maximum penalties I just wanted to reflect for a bit on what we as lawmakers ought to be considering as we turn our minds to maximum sentences and the Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria makes some useful observations. In a paper published in 2020 they talk about the fact that maximum penalties should place really some clear legally defined upper limits on the courts' sentencing power and that they should be reasonable and proportionate. But as reasoned lawmakers we also need to turn our minds to what I would call the legal principle of parsimony which is a principle that states the maximum penalty should be set at the lowest level that achieves its intended purpose. So again here the intended purpose is deterrence.I think while we look at the number of times this has occurred in New Zealand's past there is some evidence that the settings are correct at present. So just reflecting on the scale of the issue I think when we all hear those stories like Gazza's story we're all extremely outraged. But we also have to look at the big picture which is that almost 40000 call-outs are made each year and of those there are actually very few police dogs who are injured let alone killed. I think it was 24 25 dogs who have been killed many of whom have been killed in accidents not intentional incidents to kill them. Secondly I do think we have sufficient provisions at the moment and I looked at a few examples overseas. I did reflect on some of your articles last year—to the MP in the House—and I noted that in the UK there's the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which was amended by the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill. And the penalty there—it's a comparable though not exact comparison—is more or less for one year for unnecessary suffering for an animal. In Queensland there's a penalty of 40 units or two years of imprisonment for attempting to kill a police dog.My colleague again has reflected on the fact that we don't believe that making this change from two years to five years will be a sufficient measure of prevention or a motivation for people to not engage in this because people often don't walk into a situation intending to do this to an animal. We'd also question whether that act of increasing it by three years does anything to deter whatsoever. My colleague also spoke about the fact that there's no change to the penalty for injuring a police dog so there would be no change of deterrence on that front. So again while I would recognise that there is really good intent here we are unable to support this bill through to select committee because of its practical inefficiencies.