Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I share the frustration that has been expressed by my colleagues not in terms of the substance of the original legislation although it is very contentious as you are dealing with a series of finely balanced arguments in terms of the registration of child sex offenders. But that is not the argument that we are having now—that legislation has passed. The problem with it was that it was not done in a careful and considered way. I am not surprised that Minister Tolley is not taking a call or has not taken a call so far in this part of the debate because I think she will be feeling pretty—Carmel Sepuloni: Embarrassed.Hon RUTH DYSON: Embarrassed I think would be a fair word. The fact that she has got the Hon Paula Bennett to front up on her behalf is very interesting but the fact is undeniable that actually it was shonky work it was careless work and the Social Services Committee was not supported well enough by the Minister to get this critical bit of information right.Instead of fixing it in a proper way and instead of allowing due process so that it could go to the select committee and members of the select committee could hear advice from the officials who are the ones who have no doubt picked up this error and members of the public perhaps could have an opportunity to have a say—it is not on the original policy intent; it is just fixing a flaw fixing a mistake in the legislation.We could have of course as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier put the implementation date from the time of the introduction of the bill so that the consideration at select committee and proper rigour of parliamentary scrutiny would not have impacted the implementation date. The outcome would have been exactly the same and what we were trying to achieve would have been exactly the same but two other things would have happened—if the Minister and her colleagues had agreed to a proper process.The first is that we would have had time to consider the concern and the wording and the proposed fix properly instead of the whole process being done in one go. No members of the public have been able to speak to us and there was very limited opportunity to get the officials to be able to respond. It is entirely at the whim of the Minister who is not often inclined to get on her feet and take a call and answer questions from members during the Committee process—I have noticed that; she just closes down pretty well. So our access to the actual people who know what they are talking about the advisers on this bill is totally denied except at the discretion of the Minister.The second thing that would have been achieved if a proper process had been undertaken is that Parliament would have been shown the respect that I feel is due. Members of Parliament would have been able to contribute to this legislation in the manner that is ordinarily the case. The only reason for taking something through all stages under urgency is if somebody is going to gain from it by having advanced notice—a personal benefit which we would not consider appropriate—or if the intention of the legislation could be undermined unless it was taken through all stages under urgency. Neither of those fit the bill. As I said the implementation of the legislation that we are considering now could have been from the date of introduction and we still could have taken it through a proper process. I remember a former Minister of Health taking legislation through all stages under urgency in this way. That bill was even worse than this one. That bill was to—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon RUTH DYSON: —make sure that a narrow group of family caregivers received payment.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Back to this bill.Hon RUTH DYSON: I am giving an example of when urgency is actually needed which it clearly is not for this legislation.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no I just ask the member to concentrate on the content of the amendment and not bring in other bills which although they may be interesting are not part of what we are debating.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you Mr Chairperson—extraordinarily competent guidance. Even though this is a wide-ranging debate it is clearly not that wide ranging. The point that I was making was that using the process allowed by Parliament to put a bill through all stages in one go should be saved for cases when it is actually necessary not when it is convenient for the Minister to sweep it under the table to not allow proper process to deny members of Parliament access to answers to their questions from officials which every member of Parliament knows is a vital part that we normally do at a select committee. So although I support the outcome of this I certainly do not support the process.