Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I say sorry to my friend and colleague Kelvin Davis and I hope that you are able to take the opportunity to have another call shortly. Can I just briefly reiterate the points that my colleague Sue Moroney has made and that my colleague Clare Curran made before that and say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett that it is immensely frustrating when we are considering a bill through all stages under urgency that we do not have any access to members of the public who want to make a contribution. We have no access to the people who actually know what they are doing who are the official advisers on this legislation. The Minister is standing between Parliament and information and I do not think that is acceptable. We do not have access directly to the advisers ourselves so when members ask genuine questions—and it is my view that they have; this is legislation that we are supporting—then I think that they are entitled to answers. It is easy for the Minister to do. She does not have to know the answer; she just has to ask someone who is seated on the bench. She does not even have to understand the points that are being asked about.When this bill was originally described I understood that it was quite narrow and that there was just one provision that had been misinterpreted or was open to potential misinterpretation by lawyers or people who are implementing the law. Therefore 107 people who were intended to be covered by the registry were likely to not be covered by the registry. If you look at the provisions further in the bill in Part 2 the bill does appear to go a lot wider than that and it is on this point that I would like to get the Minister's comments. In Part 2 it talks about those very people—the ones who were missed out because the definition was not clear enough. It was a bit of shonky work done by one of the Minister's colleagues the Hon Anne Tolley—not done carefully enough. So now Minister Bennett is obviously having to pick up the brush pan and sweep up after her. For example clause 2(1) in Part 2 which amends schedule 1 has a very specific description of the notification procedures that the chief executive of the Department of Corrections has to go through in order to notify these people who are covered by the registry. So it says they have to be notified as soon as practicable of the penalties or the provisions in the legislation if the chief executive does not make all practicable moves in order to give them this notification. But is this replicated in the earlier legislation? Is this exactly the same and in that case why would we not just say in an amendment that the notification provisions as outlined in the primary legislation are duplicated for these people under this special legislation that is extending to these 107 people? Why does the whole procedure have to be written out again? It does not make sense.What we should actually be doing is comparing word for word this Part 2 with the primary legislation and seeing whether there is any difference because we know that if there is any difference in the actual wording of the notification procedures then somebody will challenge it—somebody will challenge it. The last thing that this Parliament should want is for a procedure set up so that people can be monitored and protected better—people who are offenders can be monitored and people who are in our communities can be better protected. The last thing we want is to be driving more mistakes through this House under urgency through all stages.We are only debating this now because of the mistakes of the Hon Anne Tolley which she made only 6 months ago—not even that; 5 months ago. Here we are fixing that up and yet we are using exactly the same procedure which is most likely to end in further mistakes being made. Members of the public may have their own views of select committees but I know that if select committees operate properly they can detect a large number of errors and party members can work constructively across political boundaries to correct those errors and make better legislation at the end of it. We have not had that opportunity. We still have not found out what actually caused the original problem. The Minister has been asked several times but flatly refuses to take a call and answer that and is blocking this Parliament's access to the advisers. I think it is a shame. On an issue as serious as this we should be taken more seriously.