Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): God make me the person my dog believes me to be. My dog is currently wearing the cone of shame. He would not make a police dog. He is a very very nervous labradoodle. But I'll tell you what there is nothing like the love of a dog like the devotion of a dog and like the selflessness and the loyalty of a dog. Mark Mitchell thank you for those stories of the remarkable spirit that we are so incredibly lucky to have when we partner with a dog. There is absolutely nothing like it. I learnt to walk holding on to an Old English sheepdog called Arthur. One of my children actually wants to a policeman so that he can be a police dog handler. With all of that however it is our job as parliamentarians and as lawmakers not to act on sentiment but to make a difference for our society and make a real difference for our society. I rose earlier and I said that in the short time I have had the privilege to stand in this House I have been somewhat disheartened by the bills that have been proposed that seem to me sheer emotion and not a lot of practicality. You may well want to reflect on the fact that a party that prides itself on its hard-headed pragmatism is the party that is putting forward measure after measure with not a lot of actual effect behind it. When there are good bills that come across the House they are looked at seriously and they are accepted by this side of the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I have just—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I'm sorry Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): If the member could make a passing reference to the bill. Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Oh a passing reference ma'am. No my point is that this bill is one of a number that we have looked at which don't have a real practical impact. The problem with this is: 40000 call outs 56 years of police dog service and as tragic as each of these incidents is 26 deaths only in 56 years and some of those were actually accidents. I ask the House whether there is really a need other than sheer emotion to bring this forward. The Sentencing Act already makes aggravating features possible to take into account the death or the injury of a police dog. We have under section 9(1)(a) actual or threatened violence or the use of a weapon; under section 9(1)(d) the extent of the loss and the damage and the harm—I don't think anyone would not expect a judge to pay attention to the loss of a police dog—particular cruelty under section 9(1)(e) or the victims' vulnerability under section 9(1)(g); and finally in section 9(4) any other aggravating factor the court sees fit. We have the mechanics already to take the loss of a police dog into account. If the death results from ill-treatment we can then turn to the Animal Welfare Act which was—I would like to point out—amended by the National Government in 2010 as far as the penalties went: in section 28 five years' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $100000 max. or both for anyone who wilfully ill-treats an animal with the result that it dies or is permanently disabled or seriously injured and impaired. The National Government had the opportunity in 2010. They changed it to section 28 and I suggest that we stick with what is actually working and sensible. I'd also just like to go back to the point I was making earlier. If this is a deterrent sentence again it ain't gonna work and I don't see the point in doing things that ain't gonna work for the sheer candy and the sugar hit of making ourselves feel good. I'm here to make a difference. In 1941 we removed the death penalty for murder. In 1949 the National Government brought it back. In 1957 we removed it again. Do you know why? Because the rate of murder doesn't change. Crimes of passion—and killing a police dog that's one of them—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired.