SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Simeon Brown said something very strange and I'm still trying to compute it; I'm trying to figure it out. He said that this was a matter of principle—he said this was a matter of principle. Now what confuses me and I'm sure it confuses everybody on this side of the House is whether or not Mr Brown understands the time line of how we actually got to this point. Let me start way back in 1993 when guess who was in Government? It was the National Party. The National Party was in Government and they voted in a law—let me say this again—the National Party voted in a law and let me say not only the National Party but a member that's sitting over there was a part of that National Government who is standing up today and last week speaking vociferously against the very legislation he voted for in 1993. The very same legislation about giving prisoners the vote for those who had been in for under three years—it's the very same. Mr Nick Smith stands up in this House today and last week saying that it was a matter of principle that they're voting against it. When did you find those principles Mr Smith? When did Simeon Brown figure out when National Party found those principles? Let me keep going down the time line 2010. Again the National Party—sorry 2008—the National Party got into Government. The National Party got into Government in 2008; 2008 2009 and it wasn't until 2010 that the National Party decided to change the law. Three years. Three years into their first term in 2008 they decided to figure out what their principles were apparently and changed the law then. It wasn't because a member of Cabinet like Nick Smith was brought it up to the Prime Minister or to Cabinet—because it was a matter of principle wasn't it Mr Smith? This is a matter of principle right? So why did that member wait three years into the first term to vote for a piece of legislation to change the prisoner voting laws? Why? Answer that question. Riddle me that Mr Smith. Silence.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because it was a member's bill.DARROCH BALL: It was a member's bill. Well done! It was a member's bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Happy to yield?DARROCH BALL: It was a member's bill. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Happy to yield?DARROCH BALL: It was a member's bill. It was a member's bill that was plucked out. It was a member's bill that was plucked out of the tin by pure luck. The National Party Cabinet that that member was a part of did not want to hear about it. I'm sure Paul Quinn wanted to come and talk to Mr Smith about it—a member of Cabinet—and say This is a matter of principle Mr Smith. We need to have this as a Government bill." Oh no it wasn't a matter of principle back then but it is now apparently. Isn't that right Mr Smith? So it was a matter of luck a matter of luck that it was plucked out by the member Paul Quinn; by the member Paul Quinn. A matter of luck. Now let me just say something also which is quite surprising to me: that Nick Smith stands up today and speaks of his outrage and last week again of his outrage about the constitutional changes being made by such a slim majority—such a slim majority. What was the majority back in 2010 when the National Party changed it Mr Smith? What was the slim majority back in 2010 when the National Party changed the prisoner voting laws? What was it? Today we've got a majority of six I believe. Is that correct? Six. Guess how many you had Mr Smith? Five. Now the reason why they had five—I hope everybody's watching—is because two parties two parties in the Government back in 2010 actually voted against it. They voted against it Mr Smith—the Māori Party back in 2010 and United Future voted against that member's bill and the one that was a matter of principle for the Government. You know call me old-fashioned but when we've got members like Mr Smith and Mr Brown standing up waxing lyrical about it being a matter of principle I just don't believe them because the evidence is to the contrary Mr Smith and Mr Brown; it is to the contrary.I just want to say one last thing before I finish up that I never thought I'd see the day that the National Party and especially Nick Smith would stand up and support a Supplementary Order Paper by the Green Party—by the Green Party—on a law and order issue on a law and order issue. Let it be minuted—let it be noted in the annals of history—that Nick Smith and the National Party voted for and agreed with a law and order policy from the Green Party. Thank you Mr Speaker."