Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It does not seem to have registered with members of the National Government that putting stuff through all stages under urgency is very bad practice. At 4.30 p.m. this afternoon part-way through the second reading of a bill that is now going to go through Committee stage and a third reading the Minister Paula Bennett tabled an amendment. I think there are still quite a few people who are shaking their heads and saying: This is really important. We want to get it right. How can we have confidence that we have got it right when the process is so rushed?". I want to ask a question about an entirely new matter—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Good!Hon RUTH DYSON: It is in—I think you should try to restrain your excitement at that possibility Mr Chairman if I may be so bold as to give you advice.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well I have been calling for it since about 7.40 p.m.Hon RUTH DYSON: We all live in hope. In Part 2 new clause 2 of Schedule 1 "Notices to be given" the chief executive of the Department of Corrections is now required under this amendment legislation as soon as practicable after 14 October last year—so the chief executive is a bit slow off the mark—to give written notice to every registrable offender. Given that these people are now being put on the register retrospectively and are then deemed to have been on it since 14 October what I want to know is what if they have breached one of those conditions between 14 October—when they are in theory on the register—and today when they are actually on the register? How does that merger of real-world and retrospective theoretical behaviour merge? So suppose that a person on 17 October did something that they are not permitted to do on the register—so on 17 October last year in the real world when there were not on the register and the chief executive had not applied and given them notice and put them on it—and they broke the rules of being on the register. Now tomorrow the chief executive is going to put them on the register and deem them to have been on it from 14 October last year what happens to their breach on 17 October? I had better ask the Minister because I cannot ask the officials. I want to know Minister is that person really going to have breached the provisions of the register on 17 October or in November or in December or January? Simon Bridges—he used to be regarded as having a sharp legal mind; not so much these days. The Hon Amy Adams is pretty good with the law. Here are two lawyers in their previous lives who might be able to give us advice. Retrospective legislation—Hon Simon Bridges: Are you paying by the minute?Hon RUTH DYSON: Ha! I will pay you what you are worth. You will owe me by the end of the session Minister—you will owe me by the end of the session. Hon Amy Adams: Highly unlikely Ruth—highly unlikely.Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes he would. So I would like to know about this provision in Part 2 new clause 2(1)(a) and (b) of Schedule 1 and then clause 2(2) in the same vein where the commissioner has to give written notice to every registrable offender. They have reporting obligations they have penalties for failing to comply with them and they have a set of criteria around a condition really of them being on the register. What happens if they have already breached it without being on it and then later tonight we are going to put them on it? It is a really Mickey Mouse set up—actually if the Chairman was not in the chair's seat he would be another person with a trained legal brain—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Of course he cannot be brought into the debate unfortunately.Hon RUTH DYSON: —whom I could seek advice from. But unfortunately I cannot bring him into the debate—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): He has got a lot to say though.Hon RUTH DYSON: —but I might wait until later in the evening. But you know any of these members are welcome to make a contribution. That is the final question that I have that I would really like answered but I just want to reiterate to the Minister that it is not really acceptable as a proper process of Parliament for her to stand between us and advice. Every time she has taken a call—generous description by my colleague Poto Williams who praised her responses; I thought they were woefully inadequate to be frank. Sometimes she did not even acknowledge or answer a question. [Interruption] Pardon? Take a call Minister. Show us you can do it and this time answer the questions that have been posed to you for the last hour. Just answer the questions and then we can move on to having some confidence that this bill that we are putting through retrospectively will not be another shonky mistake."