Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Mr Doocey for his contribution tonight and acknowledge the fact that so many New Zealanders have wholeheartedly contributed to a matter that is dear to all of our hearts. In fact we respect the duty that is done not only by police officers and the back-up staff of the police service but also police dogs. I'm going to be honest: tonight I will speak from the heart to say that my husband served in the New Zealand Police for 25 years and Mark Mitchell will know that because he served alongside him as a dog handler. My husband was unfortunate enough to lose a dog in the line of duty. So I can say that within our household we know firsthand the ability of dogs to track offenders where no human can do so and the ability that they provide to the justice system to make sure that offenders are held accountable and victims receive the justice that they deserve. I think it is also important to acknowledge the bond that exists between a dog handler and the dog. That is probably unimaginable for most of us so to lose a dog whether that be through accident or through the harm done by an offender is a huge thing to think about and a huge thing to imagine. I think that is why we have the memorial at the Police College which records the name of every single dog handler who has lost a dog in the line of duty. I always look proudly to see my husband's name there. The practicality is that when someone kills a dog in the line of duty that is not the single motive that they thought about when they woke up that day. They commit a series of offences. Some of those are against police officers some of those are against property and some of those are against members of the public so when a police prosecutor charges someone for killing or hurting a police dog it is a series of charges that are laid. In those charges it is very interesting to look over the history to see the time served for that particular offence. So the problem that I have is that increasing the current penalty from two years to five years seems to not really understand or even I guess identify the problem this piece of legislation is trying to address. I would like to know the nature of the problem. I agree—I see that there is a great need for support for understanding of those on the front line and for compassion and understanding when we lose a police dog. But I would find it hard to understand in real terms how you would have a specific instance where an offender would be charged alone with killing a police dog. Therefore that is probably why we have never seen as far as I can ascertain from looking through the list of police dogs that have been lost in front-line duty where anyone has ever served that time of two years. Currently that time is at the discretion of judges and it has never been served currently. So I would question what the merit is of extending that period from two years to five years when I can't see how that is currently in the history of these instances being actually administered to someone who's been accused of this offence and held to be accountable for it.So I would also go back to looking to try and understand the thinking of the member Mr Doocey how he came to this. The point was that there was a particular instance I understand—and I may be enlightened at the end of this debate—where a police dog was injured and that took action to bring this member's bill to the House. But the problem I have is that the bill that's been put forward by the member leaves the penalty for injuring a police dog unchanged meaning that it would have no impact for example on the person who injured but did not kill the dog. But for the police dog in the case that inspired Mr Doocey that was exactly what happened. So it is fundamentally unclear that the higher sentence in this bill would provide any significant deterrent against dogs being killed or even in fact injured in the line of duty. Offenders who kill or injure a police dog are often as I've said charged with more serious crimes and I'd like to provide members with a particular example. Christopher Graham Smith who killed police dog Gage in 2010 also pled guilty to the attempted murder of Senior Constable Bruce Lamb and subsequently he received 14 years in prison. So the point I'm trying to get to is I'm really keen to understand an instance in New Zealand's history where the particular offence that the member has identified would actually occur. What the bill does is increase the maximum penalty from two to five years and the main point from what I understand from what the member has unpacked thus far is that this would be a deterrent. So the person who set out to do a bunch of other offences or who was in the commission of those would somehow be deterred from injuring the police dog in that range of other instances of potentially murder property damage—the person would be deterred from the police dog offence if we increase the penalty from two to five years and that's kind of where I have the problem. That's the wider kind of problem that sits with the National Party in that if you just increase the penalty then that will somehow change how people think or operate. We see it time and time again with a range of offences whether it be failing to stop whether it be making it illegal to be a gang member. I clearly remember having to advise Judith Collins who was then the Minister of Police when she asked how many we convicted of those people who are in a gang because we made it illegal and the answer I think was zero at the time and she was really cross about that. We had to explain that when someone gets charged for being a gang member they've often done a bunch of other stuff and so those things are the primary offences. So I think what really underlies this is the lack of understanding from those members opposite of how the real world actually works—of how prosecution how front-line policing and how the real world actually works. Yep police dogs are important. Yes we love them—we would never do a bad thing to them. People would die for them but the reality is and how the justice system works is that people get charged with more than just killing or wounding a dog. That is the truth of the matter. So if you want to create a meaningful and good outcome you would be resourcing and making sure there are better efforts in that space but merely increasing a penalty from two to five years fails to address what you're trying to fix. I don't even actually to be honest know what the problem is that they're trying to fix indeed because while they've said some really good things that connect emotionally I fail to see what the actual problem that this member's bill attempts to fix is and I think that the member opposite knows that quite clearly. I would like to really spend the last part of my speech acknowledging the work that New Zealand Police do on a day-to-day basis the fact that they put their lives on the line on a daily basis the fact that they work so hard making sure that people are safe in their homes no matter where we go along the streets—whether it's Courtenay Place—in terms of family violence or making sure our roads are safe they do an amazing job. They go above and beyond. Quite frankly I think they deserve more than being politicised by trying to increase a penalty on a dog being killed from two to five years and I think the member opposite knows that as well. So I would like to thank the member opposite for his good intent in an area where I think that he's got all the right feelings and emotions in place and I agree with those. However I would like to point out that his understanding of practicality and how the real world operates and how people are prosecuted for offences—what he would propose when it's applied in practicality would have an unworkable effect on day-to-day life. That is the primary reason why Labour will not be supporting this bill.