Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill

on behalf of Ian McKelvie (National—Rangitīkei): I move, That the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to have you in the House. We’ve got this bill on behalf of Ian McKelvie, who is not in the Parliament this week because he’s unable to be here, so I’m shepherding this bill through for him in the great spirit of the Primary Production Committee. I just want to pay tribute to Mr Ian McKelvie first of all; he is the kaumātua of the House. He is a very well respected member of this Parliament and has always been wanting to make—

💬 SPEAKER: Did he do these notes?

I think that you need to do a point of order, Mr Speaker, if you interrupt. I know it’s a technical process the Opposition use to interrupt great speeches, but coming from the Speaker’s Chair it’s a little bit unusual to have him interrupting at an early stage in the speech. Normally, I get sat down because the Speaker can’t handle the ferocity of the debate. But in this case the Speaker had to resort to interrupting a very fine speech when I was talking about a very fine member of this House. The jovial nature of the speech is not because it should be at 9 o’clock at night, like normally when we’re doing a member’s speech, but in the support of Mr Ian McKelvie in this very important legislation around dog control. It’s important that we take the time to pay respect to that fine member of the House who’s not here today, but surely would want to see this bill passed through the Parliament in a very fine fashion.

Now, Mr McKelvie is a rural representative in this House and takes a very active interest in rural issues. Dog control is a very big issue in many rural communities, so he has found that this is an issue of some interest to his community and has decided that he would like to do a member’s bill. We are now at the third reading of that member’s bill.

Now, this bill is one that is effective and will make a big difference for Mr McKelvie in his community. When we look at the bill, it, effectively, takes away the—now Mr Hamish Walker is beside me now. He’s another fine member of the rural community and we’re looking for his member’s bills that will come forward to this House as well. I’m sure they’ll have a slightly different focus, coming from the South, but he still will be a new Ian McKelvie in time to come.

But when we look at this bill, there were about 456 charges a year in the 2015 and 2016 year, and of those, 427 were category 1 offences. So what this bill, effectively, does is enable justices of the peace to hear those cases rather than them having to go through the court process. It’s a very simple bill in that sense. It, effectively, frees up the court time to enable people to be able to make sure that we have the right use of our court processes for the right reasons, and when we look at the number of cases, 427 cases in 2015-16, that will make a significant difference in our court system.

You may say, “Well, why is that relevant?” and “Why do we need to do that?” Well, everybody knows that the court system is a system that is highly used. It has waiting times for people wanting to get into court, to hear their cases heard, and that need to make it more efficient so that we can get the proper cases heard in the proper and timely manner is very important.

I think there are three reasons why that’s really important, and the effects, I think, of this bill beyond the dog control are, first, around victims. The court process there is a very important part of victims being able to feel that they have had their case heard to get some justice for what they have experienced. Often victims have to wait too long in our system, and anything we can do that speeds that system up so that victims do get the ability to have justice, I think, is a good thing, and this bill does exactly that by taking these cases out of the District Court system and enabling JPs to hear the cases.

The second thing, I think, is it’s really important from the effect on the offenders in the court system. We’ve got so many people on remand now. If you look at the remand population in New Zealand, it’s gone up significantly under this Government. And that is a difficult time because those people aren’t getting the support they need and also are not getting the ability to get on with their sentence—or even freedom, if they’re found to be not guilty. And so the essence of what Mr McKelvie’s doing here is actually enabling the court processes to speed up for other people that would potentially have had to wait for something to have happened in this case.

The other thing—the other unintended effect, but what it does actually do for the court system—is that there are some people that might be found to be not guilty. To have a court case over their head when they are not guilty or able to demonstrate a way to deal with that issue in a constructive way quickly—this enables that potentially to happen a lot quicker because they don’t have to wait around for the court case to happen, because, you know, we’re potentially going to have a much quicker and more efficient court system as a result of this.

So the bill itself is a very short bill. If anyone’s looking at it, you’ll see that it’s only a matter of one page in its scope and it’s probably one of the shortest bills that will go through this Parliament. The Primary Production Committee made some changes to it as well: if you look at clause 4 where we’ve got new section 66A, “Jurisdiction for category 1 offences”, the select committee took out “Community Magistrates” from that. It was proposed it was going to be JPs and community magistrates. It’s just down to JPs now. So, basically, if there are two or more justices of the peace, then they can make that decision. If you look at subsection (2) there, it’s got a deletion of one of the potential sections—or offences that could be covered. And that was just to reflect what was seen in the select committee when we had hearings and advice that that particular section there was not suitable to be in the bill.

The select committee only had 13 submissions, so it wasn’t a great deal of submissions. But they reflect the nature of this bill as a bill that was fairly well represented in its first instance; there wasn’t a lot of change needed. And members of the House will see that it has come through in a pretty clean fashion from what was initially put forward by Mr Ian McKelvie.

So this bill may seem like a small bill on its face, but, in effect, what it will do is make our court system more efficient. That leads to better justice for victims, for potential offenders, and also for those that are found to be in breach of the law. And so the effect of this bill is more wide ranging than the nature of its title. So we recommend this bill to the House. We thank Ian McKelvie for bringing it forward and we look forward to it passing through this House with no additions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of Ian McKelvie’s Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, and I want to congratulate my friend from the Manawatū Mr Ian McKelvie for seeing this bill through to third reading and shortly, no doubt, to Royal assent. It is, as the member David Bennett, who spoke on behalf of Ian McKelvie, said, a short bill and in the grand scheme of things, perhaps people—history—will consider it not the most substantive bill. But it’s an important issue. It’s an issue that Ian McKelvie has chosen to progress and he’s had marked success in doing that and so I congratulate him.

This bill, of course, aims to reduce the time it takes for certain charges to be heard under the Dog Control Act. It also aims to improve the welfare of dogs involved in prosecutions under the Dog Control Act by reducing—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is to stop reading his speech.

—the time that dogs are impounded in impounding facilities while those proceedings are being carried out. And so that’s important. There is a much greater focus on the welfare of animals, both farm and domestic pets, and it’s important that we take every step that we can to improve the welfare—the wellbeing, if you will—of all animals, whether they be farm production animals or whether they be working animals or whether they be pets—

💬 Hon Member: Another eight minutes to go.

Yeah, I’m sure there’s inspiration on the ceiling—whether they be pets for domestic families.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Stop reading it.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

Anyway, so this is a good bill from that perspective, but I do want to pick up on the wider points made by David Bennett around the small but important impact this could have on our wider judicial system, because, of course, what it does do is it takes from the responsibility of District Court judges the dealing with particular types of category 1 offences, and hands those to justices of the peace, which, of course, everyone hopes will help to speed up the processing of cases in general in the District Courts. I suppose I would characterise this as a National Party member making a small improvement to relieve a very big problem created by the National Party when they were in Government—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! We’re now going to return to the bill.

Well, this is what the bill does, Mr Speaker. This bill is designed to—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think I was relatively flexible with the member who spoke on behalf of the move of the bill. I’ve been relatively flexible with this member, but if he’s going to start making this a, sort of, highly political issue, I’m going to bring him back to the bill.

Well, what this bill does, of course—what this bill is intended to do is to make the judicial process a more efficient one, and I support that. I support that intention of the bill because the number of active criminal cases in the District Courts has increased. It increased between 2013-14 and 2016-17 by over 4,000 cases as a direct result of changes that the previous Government made. So this bill does make some small steps in the right direction, but it is an attempt to address a significant problem that, as the previous member said, does mean that victims have to wait too long for justice to be done. It does mean that people who are subject to the judicial process, as the previous member said, have to wait too long for natural justice. And as the previous member also said, some people might not be guilty, which is a revelation from the National Party, I have to say, that they admit that some people might not be guilty. But it is true that this bill will help take some cases out of the hands of District Court judges and put them into the hands of justices of the peace, and that will—we have some great hope—help speed up people’s access to justice and the efficiency of the court process.

So this is a relatively straightforward bill. It does no harm, that is for sure. It does some good, and, therefore, the Labour Party is more than happy to support it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to see you here; I’ve been thinking about you and your community quite a bit lately.

I rise to give a short contribution on the third reading of the Dog Control (Category One Offences) Amendment Bill, following a superb contribution from the Hon David Bennett, who, yet again, frames it up in a very real context for those, particularly in rural New Zealand, who have had frustrations around the time it has taken for, particularly, category one offences, to get in front of the judicial system. I thought the points that he made were very well made, particularly the scale in the 2015-16 year of the number of category one cases—427—and the time it takes for the judicial system to be able to deal with that. Of course, as often happens, despite the fact that Mr Bennett gave a very considered and forthright view, he was largely attacked by the Opposition, even though it’s a members’ day morning and we’re trying to actually, in the spirit of being bipartisan, progress things. But the thin veneer of bipartisanship just wipes away the moment they see David Bennett—and most of us, to be fair—which really speaks to the true intent that sits behind them, which is very disappointing. But, ultimately, the people of New Zealand will hold a view on that.

This is, as I say, a small amendment, but a critical one. It, again, reflects in Ian McKelvie’s sponsorship of this bill, a man who is hugely respected in the Rangitīkei, but understands when he sees an issue that can be fixed with a bit of common sense reflected in legislation that reflects that common sense—he sees the idea, he prosecutes it, and makes sure that we, as Parliament, actually spend a short amount a time reflecting on it and making the law change that it deserves. The credit of this sits with him, and we, of course, are only too keen to be able to support such common sense. It’s what you’d expect from this side of the House on issues relating to, in this case, making the frustrations of people with category 1 offences—being able to see that that can actually progress through the court system, taking it off District Court judges who already have too much pressing on them, unfortunately, and giving that jurisdiction and accountability to reflect, in a judicial context, on these issues to justices of the peace; I think that makes a lot of sense.

This is not just a rural issue although it, of course, has come from Ian McKelvie—a great kaumātua, to quote David Bennett, of rural New Zealand—but also an issue in an urban context as well. I mean certainly on this side—I’m not sure about the other side—we do a huge amount of doorknocking. It certainly seems to me when I doorknock in Papamoa that every second house has a dog and every third house has a little yappy dog. Now, of course, we’ve bought one, so we’ve fallen into the same trap—although if you’re listening, Maisy Muller, you’re a beautiful little animal. But the point is that when you have so many people concertinaed in the little isthmus of Papamoa with a whole lot of dogs that don’t seem to know when the off switch should apply, you have challenges with respect to needing to—not in all cases—move through a process where you actually, potentially, have a category 1 offence. In this case, rather than a frustrated community and a frustrated street—

💬 Greg O’Connor: There’s only one that’d move in along the street with you.

Oh yes, Kieran McAnulty interrupts again, because whenever you get a point on he wants to interrupt.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Wrong person.

It’s very disturbing—an angry young man, that Kieran McAnulty, isn’t he? I think he really deserves a nice little quiet relax by the beach and to have a little perspective and perhaps come back next year with a blue tie on, who knows? My point, if I had one, was that I think the point here is that this is not just a piece of legislation which is going to benefit rural New Zealand, it will also benefit urban New Zealand, and help speed up the judicial process and give JPs the opportunity to contribute on what makes a whole lot of sense. They are very well respected; they certainly are in my community. They will be able to bring the appropriate judicial reflection on these cases and help benefit the wider country and community. Thank you, Ian McKelvie, for yet again pushing for common sense to be reflected in legislation.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It’s a delight to stand here and speak in favour of the Dog Control (Category One Offences) Amendment Bill I do have, however, one comment to make: just for the record, it was not me who interrupted that speech; it was my good friend Greg O’Connor. The only reason I say that is because his interruption was not that good and I don’t want my name attributed to it in Hansard.

This speech will be a relatively short one because this bill has been traversed in detail throughout all stages, and here we are on the verge of passing a common-sense bill. I’d like to take the opportunity to praise Ian McKelvie, a man who I’m a big fan of. He’s done a lot of good work representing Rangitīkei. His first member’s bill—of course, as members know, there are some members who’ve been here for years and years and never once had a bill pulled out, and Ian McKelvie has managed that feat twice this year. It looks like both of them are going to pass; one of them had to be taken up by the Government, but it was still Ian’s initiative to get that through. I also acknowledge Andrew Little for working with us to get that through, past the line, when it hit some stalls at the Primary Production Committee.

This bill makes sense. As the previous speaker mentioned, there are a lot of people with dogs; I had a dog once and his name was Max. I have mentioned this one particular story about Max in a previous reading of this speech, but it is very relevant to this bill so I’m just going to touch on this again. The thing is that this bill is around category 1 offences. Now, if you looked at it on the face of it, one might be forgiven for thinking there are some serious crimes that are committed that involve dogs, and one might not be comfortable with the idea of these sorts of things being dealt with by a JP. But this bill specifically states that it is category 1 offences. So my dog, Max, was a serial category 1 offender and he used to escape and run around and do all sorts of things. He’d always come back—

💬 Todd Muller: Poor teaching.

—but he would cause—that’s right. It was poor training on the previous owner’s part. We adopted Max from a lovely lady in Whanganui, who neglected to tell us that he was a runner. But, you know, Max went into the pound a few times in Masterton, and if this bill was in place at the time, we would have been able to go through that process a lot quicker than what we had to.

💬 Todd Muller: He was running away from you.

He wasn’t running away from me, Mr Muller. He always came back. He just needed a breather, just like most of my caucus, from time to time—just need a breather from me. But, you know, they always come back. But the point is that this bill doesn’t—

💬 Hon Member: Only because you’re the whip.

Only because I give them lollies, apparently. But, nevertheless, this bill doesn’t touch on serious offending—such as, for example, causing serious injury. I think that’s an important point to make, because, ultimately, this is about making dealing with category 1 offences a smoother and quicker process.

But there is actually a wider benefit, which may not have been in the intent of the bill but certainly will come into effect once this passes. What we’ve seen is that the strain that has been placed on things like the Family Court over the last seven years or so is causing a serious backlog and, in fact, in May 2018, the Chief District Court Judge referred to a stretched judicial workforce that is being forced to redeploy judicial resource from the criminal jurisdiction to the Family Court. So what this bill will do, in a small way, is to contribute to that backlog, and whilst there is a broader programme at play here by this Government to adequately resource the judicial system in order to address that backlog, Ian McKelvie, in a roundabout way, is also assisting with that. So good on him, and good on the other members of the House from all parties for standing up and supporting this.

The Primary Production Committee did work in a good manner towards this, partly due to the respect for Ian McKelvie and in other parts because this was a common-sense approach. So I congratulate him. I congratulate everybody that is supporting this bill. It is a good idea and it’s good to see, yet again, that this House is banding together to support what makes sense.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s also a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill, the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, under the name of Ian McKelvie. I guess the fitting response to it is that it is a very practical and sensible bill. Actually, as referenced in the previous speech, the sponsor’s stock-rustling bill, which got picked up by the Government, was also a very practical bill. I actually had the pleasure of travelling with the member to the Parliamentary Cricket World Cup—that spectacularly unsuccessful campaign—and I certainly very much enjoyed his company and the wisdom that he brings. Hopefully—I’m not sure what his plans are—we definitely need that sort of experience and sort of grounded pragmatism in our Parliament. Of course, given that he owns half the North Island, he would have a lot of dogs, and so he would be pretty familiar with the issues raised in the bill.

The essential element of this is that it’s taking from the crowded court efficiencies a lot of those lower-level category 1 offences out of the District Court—and that can only be a good thing—and putting those category 1 offences before JPs. So it’s really practical stuff. That would have taken 427 cases out of the District Court—and we know our District Courts are absolutely under the pump at the moment. There were 33,000 cases last year. Minister Parker has been putting on a number of extra judges to cope with the workload, and, of course, we’ve got those 1,800 new police out there rounding up the bad guys and getting them before the courts. So if we can take out those 427 cases—if we can believe that that’s a regular number—then that’s a really good step forward.

Of course, it does speed the system up as well—and justice delayed is justice denied—and it does lower the cost. If you’ve got dogs that are actually impounded at the time, they are, essentially, on remand during a lot of this time, so there is a cost on the owners. There’s a cost on the district councils in their having to provide those facilities, and, I assume, in many cases, in their having to round up the payments for the use of those facilities. So that’s another plus.

There’s also the animal welfare issues around that, as well. We don’t want dogs holed up in pounds. If they need to be put down, well, we need them to be put down, or if they return to their home lovingly, then that is good.

The other thing that the bill will do is that by lowering the threshold to below the District Court level, I think it will encourage more cases to go to a judicial process, as such, through the JPs. There are many people that may be annoyed by low-level dog offences with neighbours or with people in their local community that would not necessarily want to go to that step of taking someone that they know well in their community to court, but they might be prepared to go through a justice of the peace process, and I think that that expands the access to a dispute resolution process. I believe that it will make it more accessible and that cases will come forward, and some of that niggly neighbouring stuff can get dealt with without having to go to the District Court.

I know, as, I think, Max is a bit of a recalcitrant offender, so does our much-loved family dog, Snowy—much to my chagrin—rush the odd stock agent vehicle, such is his enthusiasm in his role of protecting the family home. If that was causing a nuisance, I’d like to think that that access to a JP might allow a threshold that someone could take that case up where they may not want to take us to the District Court. Hopefully, Snowy’s OK. I think we’ve trained him up a bit better in recent times. But it is just an example of what does occur on just a regular basis.

It’s a very ubiquitous thing—having a dog—and many of us enjoy having dogs as part of our family, or, certainly, in my case and in many farmers’ cases, they’re working animals. To be able to do that is important, but we also have to work in with societal norms as well and make sure that those checks and balances are in place and that those dogs aren’t becoming a nuisance.

So New Zealand First do support this bill, and we commend, again, the sponsor for bringing the bill forward. It’s another practical and pragmatic step which will make a difference to many New Zealanders. New Zealand First commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I only intend to take a brief call because while this is an excellent bill that, clearly, enjoys the support of the House, it’s a bill that only has, in fact, one operative clause. While every bill in this House goes through a process of 12 10-minute speeches, I don’t see the need in talking and being on my feet for the mere sake of it.

The two points I really just want to make are that it’s a bill that speaks to me to head and to heart. Heart, because I’m a massive dog lover—in fact, generally, I enjoy time with them more than I do with many people—and anything that assists the ability of our system to ensure dogs are properly cared for, I support. The second—the head point—is simply that as an ex - Minister for Courts, anything that can take the small, easily handled cases out of the full court process and put them through a much more pragmatic, practical system as a category 1 offence only makes sense.

So I just wish, as others have done, to commend Ian McKelvie for finding a simple but very effective and helpful way of ensuring that our courts work better. I hope that the animals that so many of us get so much pleasure and enjoyment from continue to be well looked after, and that for those who don’t care for them properly, their justice is swift and effective. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think there are just a few brief points I’d like to make about this bill, and one is, firstly, the principle underpinning it. It’s one that I think we’ve seen in recent amendments introduced by Aupito William Sio in other areas, and that is that we should be resolving disputes at the lowest feasible area of any dispute resolution system. This bill does that by looking at the dog control offences and saying that many of them simply not sufficiently serious to warrant the attention of a District Court judge and so those category 1 offences are being able to be disposed of by JPs and also, it must be said, by community magistrates under the Criminal Procedure Act as well. I note that the Primary Production Committee did make a change to the Act and crossed out community magistrates, not because they shouldn’t be able to do those cases but because they already are under the Criminal Procedure Act.

So, really, that’s the first point, and associated with that is the appropriate use of judicial resource. District Court judges are very senior lawyers and it’s simply not necessary for them to have that degree of skill and experience to dispose of low-level cases which are things like dogs running free and the like. They are not cases that would impose any suggestion of imprisonment or destruction of the dog, as I understand it, because a brief review of the cases in this area shows you that once the question of dog destruction arises, blood certainly runs high. In fact, only moments ago I was reading about a case in Tauranga which went all the way to Court of Appeal, and for the entire period of that time, the dog was impounded, which is something that I didn’t actually know—that whilst these cases are live, the dogs have to be impounded.

So the other thing to note is that by expediting this, and as an animal welfare concern—and I’m sure that pounds meet requirements—it’s better for the dog to be, if it can be, back where it belongs if that’s at all the case. So that’s a further excellent point.

This bill also recognises the competence of our judicially trained JPs—they are not simply doing parking tickets all the time. These are cases that are, arguably, a bit more serious than that. It’s a genuine offence and not just a regulatory matter, so it’s good to recognise that JPs are competent, and I would like to see our JPs given a little more work in these kinds of areas.

It also recognises the place that JPs have, as this is a classic kind of community order offence—that dogs are running free, it’s disruptive, and there’s a modest community risk. It’s not a biting or an attack. JPs are part of the community. They don’t sit apart from the community in the way that, perhaps, judges do—a bit more distant. They are very much embedded in our community. It’s actually a very good use of the JP resource. Having had a little to do with the appointing of JPs, as an MP, I know those people know their communities well and will make careful and compassionate decisions around this.

I just note again that community magistrates are still able to make these decisions—they always have been. So, overall, this bill is about freeing up judicial resources but also about putting the decision making as low down on that decision framework as we can. That has not only resourcing implications but also it engages better. It makes people much more accepting of the decisions if they feel that decisions have made by the community that they belong to.

Whilst the bill is, as Amy Adams said, a very short bill, I think it actually has some values in it that we can learn from, about who makes decisions for whom. So I say well done to Ian McKelvie. It’s a pity he couldn’t be here to speak on it himself. I hope he’s well. Best regards to him. This is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

Kia ora, mōrena tātou i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata.

[Greetings, good morning to all in this Parliament.]

Aotearoa needs a well-resourced and a well-supported justice system to maintain due process and the natural justice values, to make sure that we are a country, a Parliament, and a Crown that upholds to the nth degree the necessity of due process, the necessity of natural justice. The Green Party will be opposing this bill, and I will lay out the reasons why.

We do actually respect the sponsor of the bill, Ian McKelvie, and the problem that this legislation is trying to address. We know that it is very real. We know that the backlog of our criminal cases, our Human Rights Commission, the Family Court, and so on and so forth is so great that we have got, I think, some cases waiting between 18 months to two years to go to trial, and some of the less serious cases are also facing that real waiting time. We know this is not helpful for anybody.

We understand the pragmatic nature of this proposal, but the Green Party must hold the line on making sure that we are protecting due diligence and due process. I want to pick up on some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Dr Webb. Having had community-level involvement with our justices of the peace and community magistrates as an advocate over many years in my own community, I absolutely agree with Dr Webb that those community connections are key to ensuring good outcomes and respectful relationships, and that those local judicial authorities are accountable to their own communities. However, there is a level of judicial training and expertise that we simply cannot expect yet—yet—such as evidence training, and we would like to see an overhaul, a systemic move toward empowering and resourcing our magistrates and our judicial authorities at every level to be able to have that key specific training that does uphold due process.

This bill—I should have said that at the start—will allow justices of the peace and community magistrates to hear those lesser offences and charges rather than what is currently the situation, which is that these are heard in the District Court. And that is why I outlined that we need to make sure our District Courts, our overall justice systems, are properly resourced—and that is work that we will continue to stand strong on.

The hypothetical situation where we are dealing with an infringement with, say, a $3,000 fine, up to the maximum, and where dog destruction is imminent is a big deal. That is a big decision to be made, and as a dog lover, like many of us here in the House—I wasn’t one but we rescued one, and now I’m almost like a reformed racist; when it comes to dogs I’m now a dog lover, and I’m able to pull on that emotion and that connection to our own rescue dog, with understanding. I used to hate dogs but we’ve got our own now and we love her. That situation of the possible $3,000 fine and dog destruction is a big decision. Eventually, I would like to see our local judicial authorities, such as justices of the peace and community magistrates, be able to properly, fully address such a situation. I know that members have spoken to our collective love for animals and our domestic pets, and how everyone here is concerned for that as well as making sure that these cases are heard.

I simply and strongly stand for the Green Party’s stance in really wanting to protect that due process. We’re speaking up for that due process, because if anything does go wrong, if the evidence isn’t quite up to scratch, if we haven’t been able to skilfully bring out the right evidence, then the impact of those decisions is incredibly huge.

I wanted to address the issue of animal welfare while a dog is impounded, which others have rightfully and understandably raised. I would want all of our animals to be well in pounds regardless of how long. We absolutely don’t want them to be in there for longer than they need to be but, while they are in there, I would hope that their welfare is absolutely the priority—for every animal that is held.

So I think for us it’s simply that, again, while we acknowledge the problem and the practical solution that is being sought here, we simply want to look and not ignore—and the consistency for us is about not ignoring the systemic issues that need to be addressed, which is always consistent with what we stand for and always have since the beginning of our movement. Looking at the system, making sure that we have got a well-resourced justice system at all levels that can uphold the needs of the community, that can uphold natural justice and due process in a way that is diligent and qualified and skilled. We will continue to be a voice in this House to make sure that we are not undermining the huge impact that such decisions could have on people if we are not making sure that this is a robust proposal. So, again, we will be opposing this bill. Thank you.

This is a split call. I call Tim van de Molen.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The previous speaker, Marama Davidson, was just barking up the wrong tree. There’s nothing wrong with this piece of legislation. I don’t mean to hound her unnecessarily, but this is a pretty straightforward set of changes that have been proposed by Mr McKelvie. Really, it’s about getting the right result, not burdening the court system unnecessarily, and it’s good to see it progressing through. So I wanted to congratulate Mr McKelvie on that in particular.

There was actually one question from the committee of the whole House stage that went unanswered, and I do just want to reflect on that as well. I believe it was Mr Penk who queried exactly who had let the dogs out, and, so, in relation to this bill, by being able to change the process to remove the time dogs are spending in the pound, then I think it’s appropriate to answer that by saying this House will indeed be responsible for having let the dogs out and streamlining that process. So I commend it to the House.

We have to put up with a few dad jokes in this House, but dog jokes are obviously a new category, that we will now have to roll ourselves on the floor and take the fluff off our speeches. It does give me great pleasure to stand and speak about this. Being a late speaker after a series of speeches in any bill that goes through, often the mind wanders, and having spent a few years on the planet, the experiences I have that bring me to this House that involve dogs, that are pertinent, highly pertinent, to this bill—as you will know, Madam Speaker, nothing I ever speak about is not highly pertinent to a bill.

But I am reminded of my own childhood—because at the basis of this bill is wandering dogs, really. This is about the ability of JPs to deal with wandering dogs. Those more serious offences categorised are taken out of this, so, ultimately, unregistered and wandering dogs. I know that having grown up on a farm where the dogs we bred tended to be—they did wander. Getting up in the morning to go and get the cows in and finding out that a bitch three farms away had gone on heat overnight and none of your dogs were present, and having to get the cows in yourself, did remind me that there is a need to ensure that dogs are under control and not allowed to wander, if it means that a slightly hung-over young man has to go up on to the farm himself to get the cows in.

Of course, the other thing was our dogs tended to be car chasers, which meant that the only ones that survived to breed were the good car chasers. So we ended up with a category of dogs or a breed of our dogs that were very fertile, very good at chasing cars, but not particularly good at the job they were employed to do—sort of Darwinism in action, if you like, on the farm.

Coming back to the bill, which brings me right to the point of the bill, which is about those wandering dogs and the ability to deal with them. Of course, I did notice that the member who introduced this bill, Mr Bennett, he wandered slightly off. I wondered if it was actually in deference to the sponsor of this bill. I found his speech a little bit like the gait of Mr McKelvie, having been on the same trip and same cricket field with him as Mr Patterson, the one he alluded to.

But we now bring ourselves to the real guts of this bill, having, sort of, circumvented perhaps somewhat, which is really to ensure that where these offences—that actually are an important part of many days. One of the previous speakers talked about doorknocking and awareness of how, at a certain stage of the electoral cycle, dogs and their presence and their degree of discipline does become quite relevant, probably, to members in this House and their doorknocking crews, as much as anyone else. So it is very important to the good running of society, certainly the safety of society, the feel-good around our society, which we are here to do, to ensure that these irritating little problems that dogs can be—unregistered dogs, which, again, is a category 1 and something that can be dealt with in this bill, as well as keeping dogs under control can be dealt with. To actually have to wait to get into court to deal with these issues while what can often be a very favoured family friend, an important part of the family, may be sitting, at great expense to everyone and great irritation to everyone, in a pound.

So having JPs—judicial JPs, I might say. It’s not just the JPs who we may sign up each day as electorate MPs and nominate; these are the judicial, specially trained JPs, who I could see developing some sort of expertise in this area, all done to expedite cases through the courts to ensure that the much more serious—and not even only in relation to dogs; the more serious offences in relation to dogs can be dealt with, because, of course, this bill doesn’t deal with failing to comply with the effects of dangerous dog classifications either, which is important, because, again, some of the injuries that can be inflicted, some of the fear that can be imposed on a neighbourhood by dangerous, unrestrained dogs, can have the same effect as the same sort of unrestrained, ill-disciplined people can have in a neighbourhood. Funnily enough, those same types of people and same types of dogs so often are associated.

So anything that gives us the ability to deal with that I can only agree with. Therefore, I have no hesitation commending this bill to the House.

Quite clearly, the House has gone to the dogs, and I’m not talking about the member beside me. But I just want to start by acknowledging the person who brought this bill to the House, Ian McKelvie. He’s an incredibly hard-working rural MP. He was the mayor of the Manawatū from 2002 to 2011, and a fact that not many people in here probably realise: he is the longest-serving mayor of the Manawatū District to date. Also, I want to acknowledge the brains behind the operation—that’s his wife, Sue. She’s a wonderful lady and does a great job.

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge you for the events that have happened up your neck of the woods in the last 36 hours. You have got an electorate office only 300 metres from the wharf. You have been the MP there for a long time. You were on the ground yesterday and the day before. I just want to acknowledge you and also the efforts of all the emergency services over the last 36-48 hours.

Back to the bill, it’s a very simple bill. Most of the points have been acknowledged by both sides. It basically takes a bit of pressure off the courts and allows JPs to hear dog cases. We must remember we are talking about dogs, but in many cases, a dog is more than just an animal; it’s man’s best friend, woman’s best friend. We love them. I’ve had a few dogs in my time. One of them was called Mad Max, and, unfortunately, this legislation may apply to my lovely Mad Max. He’s a boxer dog that gets into trouble from time to time. It’s also worth mentioning that last year, there were just under 500 cases heard under the Dog Control Act, so this will free up the court’s time.

Just lastly, I want to again acknowledge the hard-working rural MP Ian McKelvie. You’ve done a great job, and I hope you’re watching. Wherever you are, Ian, I hope your health’s coming back. Cheers.

Madam Speaker, may I just begin by acknowledging the hard work that has been done in the last few days by the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern; the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges; and the MPs who come from the part of the country that is affected by the eruption, Tamati Coffey, Kiritapu Allan, and, of course, yourself. At times like this, we join together, and, oddly enough, we join together on this bill.

So from a very large and very important matter to what some people have described as a very small matter and a small bill. I suggest that contained within this allegedly small matter and small bill, there are things that concern small people, like myself and others, who are perhaps somewhat nervous around dogs, especially large dogs. This bill does speak to some of those concerns. I quite like dogs—dogs that are under the control of their owners. I grew up on a farm, in farming territory, myself, and, of course, the dogs that I was around were sheep dogs who were very much under the control of my uncles and my cousins. So that was an expectation I always had, that dogs would be under the control of their owners—even the small, yappy dogs. So for someone to find a large dog running loose, running uncontrolled, or dogs that are not clearly associated with a person, well, that can be a frightening and distressing or perhaps even just a nervous-making experience. Of course, as Mr Muller noted before, those of us who go knocking door to door often find that dogs can be a little bit worrying.

So there is good reason to control dogs, but it does seem sometimes that the offences that people commit with respect to dogs have ended up not being tried for a long time or have ended up with dogs being impounded for a long, long time. There is a problem here that is to be solved, and Mr Ian McKelvie has come up with a very sensible suggestion, which most of this House agrees with, that the small and minor offences should be overseen by judicial JPs. So, technically, what’s happening is that some of the offences under the Dog Control Act that are category 1 offences are now going to be heard by judicial JPs. Category 1 offences are defined in the Criminal Procedure Act and are offences that—basically, infringement offences. They’re not punishable by a term of imprisonment. They are infringements. They attract a fine.

But in terms of the Dog Control Act, for the people who are watching, the sort of offences that attract those infringements, they’re mostly in Schedule 1 of the Act. They’re offences like the “Wilful obstruction of [a] dog control officer or ranger”, the “refusal to supply information or wilfully providing false particulars”, “Failure to comply with [a] bylaw”, “Failure to implant [a] microchip transponder in [a] dog”, a “False statement relating to dog registration”, “Falsely notifying [the] death of [a] dog”, or the “Failure to register [a] dog”. A lot of them are quite small offences and they are quite technical in nature, but they do go to the control of dogs and so they do need to be dealt with. The one that amused me was the “Failure to carry [a] leash in public”. I’m just assuming that’s “carry [a] leash in public” when you are accompanied by a dog, not just a failure to carry a leash in public at all. Even so, they are small offences, and it’s really worth noting that most dog owners are good dog owners. Most dog owners do comply with these requirements most of the time, as much as they are able to.

But when someone doesn’t comply, it does need to be dealt with, and that has resulted in, as you know, a backlog in the courts, and that leaves owners in a state of waiting for their case to be heard, and in some cases it leaves dogs impounded. Now, dogs are—they’re people people. They’re people dogs. Dogs seem to love their families. I’m sure you’ve possibly heard the phrase, the saying, that dogs are slaves; cats have staff. What it indicates is not necessarily that one type of animal is better than the other, but dogs are deeply attached to their families, and so to be impounded is actually pretty rough on the dog. So this is a way of solving a couple of problems. It solves the problem of the judicial backlog and it solves the problem of the humanity of keeping dogs impounded. It’s a very sensible measure, proposed by a sensible man.

So I am delighted to be able to stand and support this bill at its third reading, to have set out the reasons for it and say, actually, this is just common sense. With that thought, like the previous speaker, Mr Hamish Walker, I’d like to just compliment Mr Ian McKelvie on this and say that I too know Ian and his wife, Sue, having run against Ian in Rangitīkei in 2014. He is a true gentleman and I trust he is doing well. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

I get the last word. I get the honour of the last word. My wife hates it when I have the last word. The Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. This is a very simple bill that identifies a problem and then provides a solution, and that is the way Ian McKelvie works. I’d like to pay tribute to that man—hugely respected across the House for the work that he’s done in this House and continues to do. This is a member’s bill. We’re on a members’ day. We all agree on it. The issues have been well traversed. I can’t understand why we can’t truncate the process and just knock these sorts of bills to touch very early on, speed them up and get through it, but then I realised that the Government doesn’t want us to do that because if that bill gets dealt with and gets voted on—as it will be today, and it’ll pass into law—then we go to the ballot and we get another member’s bill. I’ve got three really good bills waiting there to be drawn. I got one drawn last year, the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill. So I realise that’s why they want to stall, because they don’t want us to get our members’ bills out. So this is a great piece of law—[Interruption] Oh, they’ve sparked up on the other side now. This is a great piece of law brought to the House by a great man, and I commend it to the House.