Davidson Marama; Tolley AnneMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): 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 $3000 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 $3000 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.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Tim van de Molen.