Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you for the chance now to speak on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. Congratulations to my colleague on my right Ian McKelvie for having this drawn out of the biscuit tin the ballot and for the next two bills that are by my fellow National Party colleagues as well. We've been particularly lucky in this latest round.So the principles of the bill are to save a few frustrations of dog owners many of them very valid; save them some time and money; save the justice system some money; and of course dog control authorities some time and money as well. It's not belittling or bypassing serious offences when it comes to dog control offences but it involves just category 1. So despite the fact that we've had previous speakers want to draw down a little bit deeper into what category 1 entails and what it involves what we do know is that those are the offences not punishable by imprisonment if you want to just have a quick line there.The idea of including a justice of the peace and a community magistrate is derived from the Criminal Procedure Act of 2011 and this category 1 offence makes up 90 percent of recent dog control cases. So we are seeing where the volume of the work is coming from. It allows for a sped-up court process for offending relating to dog control and of course as I said before the JP and the community magistrate taking the place or able to hear a case rather than the District Court judge.It's important to understand I think that situations can arise when even the best owners of the best dogs get into a little bit of trouble. It's not just neglect or wrongful intention—those kinds of serious cases—it's sometimes where there's a strange set of circumstances or just a momentary lapse in judgment as a dog owner and it can lead to a dog owner having to deal with fallout from an attack or criminal prosecution. Sometimes these owners can be punished by a fine in addition to other costs and liability and damages caused and sometimes it may result in a criminal record. Furthermore sometimes the dog itself has to be destroyed unless the owner can show exceptional circumstances. If you look at where the charges and offences are set out in sections 57 and 57A of the Dog Control Act you'll see that the only defence for a dog and a dog owner is that they have to have total absence of fault or exceptional circumstances. So you can see why cases back up and back up quite fast. It's a bar that they've got to argue and no wonder we're having the backlog that we have.About 18 months ago I went on a ride along with Auckland's animal control animal shelter team and we went to not only just the shelter but we went out in the field and went to the different homes and the callouts that they had. On that particular day it was all dog-related. The staff there did an incredible job but they were short of staffers for their prosecution team. So big was the backlog and what they had to do to follow through and to appear in court that they were appealing to me—I was a city councillor at the time—for more resourcing to help their prosecutorial team. I also visited on the day two types of dog owners: one was where a neighbour had called out and we went to visit them and they were incredibly perplexed didn't know why the dog had behaved the way that it had; and then there were others that were outright violent at our presence. They knew exactly what had happened and they would be no doubt offenders that would be outside category 1 and therefore not captured by this bill.So I think in summary Ian McKelvie has done really well for a practical solution. As legislators we should be very mindful of ways to make things a little less frustrating for people and if that's something that we can do by empowering JPs and community magistrates it is something that we can do. I encourage Ian McKelvie to be encouraged that on the other side of the House it looks like everyone's supportive so we'll look forward to a safe and easy passage. Thank you.