Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to ask the Minister a few questions and it's really in relation to the lack of analysis that's been undertaken in terms of why this bill is taking place. We've already heard those arguments around the regulatory impact statement and the fact that officials have provided some advice; that was ignored and they were directed to take an option. But Newsroom wrote an incredibly good article and it's worth taking note of.Emma Hatton has put together a great article which asks some additional questions on that. And it was a very thorough report. It points out quite rightly—and the Minister might want to speak to the advice that they refer to because it was in December last year that this report said there are going to be additional costs. So overall when we look at this this will cost the taxpayer more than actually scrapping section 27 reports. When you look at the forecast—and that's what's done in this article very well; they've broken it right down—for those currently serving a sentence of over two years an additional 136 prison beds will be required; for those currently serving a sentence of two years in prison or less an additional 120 beds will be required; and for those currently serving a sentence of home detention 124 beds will be required. So the average cost of imprisonment being $193000 a year—it can be as high as nearly $5000 a day for those super maximum extreme risk units—that's about $1.8 million a year.I'm interested to know: has the Minister taken this into account on top of the 6.5 percent budget cut that Corrections Justice and Courts are all having to find in their baseline? With promises such as these kinds of window dressing - type promises that the Government's doing there clearly hasn't been adequate time to do that level of analysis to say how much this is actually going to cost the taxpayer at the end of the day. And furthermore how will these additional costs you're putting on the taxpayer be funded given the fact that all those departments that are now required to do this work—how are they going to be able to do this with a 6.5 percent budget cut? I mean some of that funding for Courts alone will mean that some of the administrative work just can't even be done. It's in a cost of living crisis and the Minister himself has said that the two key issues that he heard back at the election when talking to people was the cost of living and also law and order. So if the number one issue that came back after the election—and that same argument that when you're elected to do something you need to do it. If it is the cost of living why are we passing a bill under urgency that is going to increase the costs on taxpayers that is going to increase the financial burden on taxpayers? What is the rationale for doing that in a cost of living crisis if that was the number one issue that people wanted to know about? If New Zealanders don't get the opportunity to comment on this if they don't have the right to submit at select committee or have their voices heard how is it fair that they have to pay for something that looks flash in a sound bite that gets a great tweet that ticks a box on your 100-day plan? They're the ones who have to stump up and pay when you can't pay the bills when your Budget doesn't meet the requirements. Because the long-term forecast of what this is going to cost the justice sector cluster is actually an increase to the amount that's already allocated.It's not rocket science that you can't reduce the budget of the justice cluster increase the costs that are required to the justice sector and then champion yourselves as heroes of the cost of living crisis. Something has got to give and there needs to be some serious analysis done at some point. No doubt they're doing this now in the lead up to the Budget. But the Minister needs to come clean with New Zealanders and tell us what the real cost of this bill is to taxpayers. What is the actual cost that we're going to have to stump up? While a tweet looks good for a few seconds and while it might be good to tick your box the actual outcome for us as New Zealanders is increased costs to the justice sector. I'll be very interested to hear how he plans to account for that.