Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thanks very much Madam Chair. I too stand in support of my good friend and very old colleague Ian McKelvie.Hon Members: Oh!MAUREEN PUGH: No I did mean he's an old friend and good colleague. As Ian would attest when you're involved in local government and you're talking about dogs it's probably one of the most controversial things that you can talk about in local government—that and library books.I note that this is a very simple bill but it is a very practical one and you would expect that from Ian McKelvie. One of the main aims of this is to eliminate the kind of time that is involved in the District Court. I'm sure my colleague Chris Penk will agree that the last thing we need our courts to be clogged up with are very minor dog offences. That is not the best use of our court system and we have a very fine set of other members in our community our justices of the peace and our court magistrates who are able to fill that void.I do note that in the submission that came in from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices' Associations they do agree that there is capacity within their trained JPs now of which there are about 260 across the country to fill the gap and undertake the work that is required as a result of this bill. But I would ask the member in the chair Alastair Scott if there will be special training for those JPs so that they can undertake this new work and who is responsible for the training for those JPs so that they understand the laws that they are going to be presiding over? So if the member is able to answer that I would be very grateful—if he was listening. That would be good.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You may wish to repeat the question.MAUREEN PUGH: Maybe he could get it in the Hansard. But I do note also that the submission from the Rangitīkei District Council also mentioned two clauses in there and there appeared to be some conflict between the two. I don't know that it has actually been addressed in the bill and I just wonder if the member had some idea about whether that conflict was addressed in the Primary Production Committee. It talks about section 32(2) which is excluded from the effect of these amendments but section 33EC(1) is included and they both talk about menacing dogs and dangerous dogs. One is excluded and one is included so I just wonder how they're reconciled in terms of this new piece of legislation so that when they do come before the court—have both been excluded or are both included now because I couldn't find the reference to it in the draft bill?But one of the things that I think we're going to see with this legislation too is that because we have the capacity now to hear these minor offences by JPs we now eliminate the amount of time that animals will be spending in impounding facilities in the council dog pounds. What we know about those impounding facilities is that they cost a huge amount of money to run and so those costs then have to be picked up by the people who own the dogs. So this is a very practical piece of legislation because we speed that up and we save people money. We save the courts time and the courts money.So there are absolutely no issues with this bill at all but just to reiterate: my first question that you may have missed I say to the member in the chair was around the JPs who will be presiding over these cases. The federation of JPs says that they have the capacity the numbers to undertake the work but is there special training that will be made available to the justices so that they can adequately undertake the work that they will be required to do in the court system? So your wise counsel on that would be appreciated I am sure and this is basically the end of my contribution. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Penk you're not taking a call? Right.Chris Penk: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I call Chris Penk.