Bennett David; Dyson RuthClauses 1 to 4Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Chair. It gives me great pleasure to rise on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill particularly on behalf of my colleague Ian McKelvie who normally would have been here because this is his bill. Unfortunately Ian can't be here tonight but members of the National Party and other parties I'm sure will be here to support that fine member in his bill here tonight.This bill is a simple bill in the sense that it enables justices of the peace and community magistrates rather than District Court judges to hear cases in regard to these issues of category 1 offences under the Act. Now that may seem to be a very small change but it actually will enable the freeing up of District Court judges' time. Some people may consider that that time would be very minor in case but when you look at the number of cases that come before the courts we see that there were 465 charges placed under the Dog Control Act in 2016 and 427 of those were category 1 offences. So that effectively will take 427 cases that potentially could be heard by justices of the peace or community magistrates.It is for the type of case that is a category 1 offence—so it would go through the criminal justice system and before a court—but most people would consider that it would be a situation that can be dealt with other than by a District Court judge—namely a justice of the peace or community magistrate. Mr McKelvie in this case has identified an area in the law where there had been a requirement that it would go through a higher level of scrutiny in the court system when it is in fact a case of public opinion that could easily have been dealt with by a lower level of scrutiny—namely a justice of the peace or community magistrate.In effect Mr McKelvie is saving the court system time and by doing that he is enabling—Chris Penk: Very worthwhile.Hon DAVID BENNETT: A very worthwhile ambition as Mr Chris Penk says and Mr Chris Penk is our courts spokesperson so he will have a very good and strong understanding of what that will mean in saving time for our District Court judges.It effectively means that our District Court judges can hear other cases in a more timely way and some people may consider well what does that actually mean? But there are a lot of people out there who go through our court and justice system who wait a long time for their case to be heard and if they can have that case heard earlier and in a quicker and more timely manner it enables them to actually deal with any issues that they may have created in their own lives. It may enable them to get the help that they need through a sentence that may be attributed to that person. It may enable victims to feel that they have had a better response to the situation than if they'd been waiting for a court case to be heard.So there are a lot of downstream effects from this bill that are not obvious in the title which is around dog control because it will enable members of the public that have committed an offence to actually get help earlier. That is a big part of this parliamentary system: to enable people to get the assistance that they need. So Mr McKelvie has in effect helped a lot of people by simplifying the rules around the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. First of all I would also like to just acknowledge that Mr McKelvie has a history of dog legislation whether it is in fact this legislation or the cattle rustling legislation that he has been known for to go through this Parliament as well. So he's been a very lucky man in the sense of drawing bills that have a very rural focus but actually a practical focus. I think that we all consider the kaumātua of the House to have a very practical sense to what he does.Now the Primary Production Committee received and considered 13 submissions on this bill and recommended that it be passed with certain amendments.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh I thought the member was going to take another call.