SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thanks Mr Chair. I just would like to also circle back in regards to Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki's question. Because it is relevant to the topic of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) I would like the member to go through for the benefit of those listening who the disability assist dogs training organisations are listed under the Dog Control Act. The reason I ask this is because of my concern about the SOP that sits specifically around the training and expertise. I've had a little bit of a look in regards to what the training for the dogs is in fact and one of the things—so I looked at the low-vision foundation particularly. In fact interesting story: I was quite keen to be a trainer or a volunteer to support these dogs for low-vision. Unfortunately my husband wasn't a fan of it because we would have to give the puppy back. So the training occurs from a period of 12 to 18 months with a volunteer and at that point the volunteer then hands the dog over for a professional six-plus months training package. It costs thousands and thousands of dollars to do this. There is a huge network wrapped around including the appropriate selection and picking of these dogs and breeding to get them to the right types of traits that they want. Some are smaller some are bigger and they are matched appropriately with people. The other thing that happens there is the full cost of that dog is paid for by the low-vision foundation. What happens there is the vet bills the food bills the registration bills and respite—so if a family has something that occurs and they can't look after the dog for a little bit of time there is some respite. This SOP recommends that there will be sort of a contracting out of the opportunity for these organisations that are well and truly safely listed and have a set of guidelines and have had many many years of experience doing this—contracts that out to an individual person. That's from my reading. Now if I have my reading wrong I would like to just acknowledge that but the reality is it was only raised with us in the House on the second reading. We didn't have the full participation of the member Penny Simmonds throughout our select committee process; it was not something that she was able to participate fully in. We did brush upon this idea of the extension. It was one thing that was outside of scope. It is not something that we should hurry through. The risk to our community is one reputational damage—what happens if a dog is not well trained and causes harm. In fact I have circumstances where people who are not part of those organisations with clear appropriate training have actually harmed community members harmed the reputation of those dogs and also caused great distress to the community and to their I guess person they're matched with—I'm not quite sure of the term. As a consequence I think this is very clearly something that is worth considering in the future. It's looking to perhaps solve a problem that we understand and know and that is that we don't have enough dogs happening that they're very expensive to get and that there is a wait-list. We recognise that. But that's not something that should be discussed in an SOP in the second reading. We need to give more attention to this matter. We need to have had discussed this. We need to have listened to the community and their views. We didn't traverse this at all with their views. Accordingly I don't support—Labour does not support—this submission. Thank you.