Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): 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.