Mallard Trevor: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1905. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be opposing this motion. I think this is a very silly motion and an unnecessary motion. I think it is fair to say that the Labour Party has been working very closely with the Minister of Justice to help the Government get out of a hole that it has got into because of its own disorganisation. Clearly this matter has been coming up for a long period of time. The Minister has not that unsubtly criticised her predecessor Simon Power for not getting the matter sorted earlier. She has been working with Charles Chauvel on this interim regime while there is a review and I think it is fair to say that over a period of time there is likely to be quite large differentiation in the results of that review. Clearly the House even on this part has a variety of views but there has been an attempt to work together.  
Without wanting to sound like the two big parties ganging up on everyone else generally when the vast majority of the House is in agreement with something both within the House and within the select committee process it can be dealt with at a fair speed to get the report back. This motion will make no difference to that. I mean I am not unaware of a select committee that recently has decided to report a bill back within about 3 weeks of submissions closing dispensing with a report from departmental officials. The committee thought that was unnecessary because it knew what it wanted to do the matter was relatively simple and it was a matter of just getting on with it within the select committee.  
We have had I think some quite big changes to our Standing Orders. One of them has allowed us to consider business on Wednesday and Thursday nights and through into the following Thursday and Friday mornings where it is near-unanimous within the Business Committee that that occur. But part of the same group of changes to the Standing Orders was a requirement when bills are going to be at a committee for less than 4 months to have a motion of this sort which is a debatable motion. I just want to say to the Government that I think it would be wiser in future to do a little bit of consultation around this to seek as well as an undertaking to support the legislation a process understanding with as many Opposition parties as it can and therefore to get things back in a reasonable way without making it look like legislation is being rammed through.  
The problem that we have with this approach is that it looks like the legislation is being rammed through. I think—in fact I probably am sure—that the Greens have a different point of view but on this relatively minor extension albeit of an important law then I do not think it could be a fair accusation that it is being rammed through because there is going to be thorough consideration of the issues as part of the report and part of the review which we will then all look at. We will look the legislation over for the need for it and any changes whether it should be extended and whether it should be totally dropped. That is a process that has to be a thorough one and with proper outside consultation which is just not available because as I said when I started this speech the Government basically took its eye off the ball and we have got to the point where legislation was going to lapse and it was not really sure of the effect of that and whether it wanted to replace it.  
Much as I would like to blame the current Minister of Justice—I would like to blame her for lots of things—this is not one of the things that I am prepared to blame Judith Collins for. We are trying to help her get out of the problem. I just say to the Government to the Acting Leader of the House and to the Government whips that in future it might be better to consult and to get an agreement rather than to put a straitjacket around things force things through and possibly get unnecessary debate as a result of it.