Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. I am looking forward to the committee stage of this Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2)—the second bill in two weeks just to be clear—because I would be interested or one of my colleagues would be very interested in exploring with the Minister who will be in the chair just what Darroch Ball meant when he referred to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) we were debating this afternoon. So about 3½ to 4 minutes into his speech Darroch Ball in full flight referenced the SOP we are debating today. So that's good. That will be one of the questions that we will be rehearsing with the Minister in the committee stage of this House. What SOP? What is in the SOP? What is the Government hiding? Is Darroch Ball foreshadowing that there is an SOP to come to the House? In terms of process how does that even work? So that is something which adds to the glaring lack of credibility surrounding the whole sorry saga of this bill.If I turn to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2)—which is the second iteration of this bill that has hit the House this week—as a member who did not have an opportunity to speak on this bill on Thursday in urgency last week and so was not as familiar as to some of the context around this bill. I just thought it might be useful—for me for me particularly because this is an important significant piece of legislation—just to go through some of the events of last week which are—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just say to the member—the member's had two minutes now we don't need her to go over the events of last week we need her to speak to the bill. It's not that hard.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Madam Speaker very much for your guidance. So I'm referring to the purpose of the No. 2 bill at this point where in the explanatory note it says it [the bill] remedies inconsistencies in its provisions about enrolment of sentenced prisoners." So in doing so I would like to speak—as did the Minister in his contribution to the second reading—to and examine some of those inconsistencies that arose last week in the debate to the No. 1 bill which has led to this House spending more valuable House time putting right apparently those inconsistencies. So in continuing to speak to the inconsistencies in its provisions as referenced in the No. 2 bill I want to spare a moment in terms of process around this second bill in that the bill the No. 1 bill passed its first reading and enough on that under urgency last week. The officials I'm assuming were then sent away and given effectively three days to write the No. 2 bill. Just a few words on that process which remedies inconsistency—so that's what these officials were sent away to do over the weekend. Fair enough. Fair enough. Fair enough. It might be said this is a bill that went through under urgency. There are inconsistencies in its provisions I read from the No. 2 bill here and so fair enough. Let's send the officials away to put it right and we'll deal with it under urgency again. The question arises of course: why? Why is it that this bill must be addressed through all stages in urgency the very next sitting day of this House? But I will leave that aside as a question that can only be answered by the Minister in the committee stage. And I am sure that there will be a number of questions of the Minister in the committee stage on that matter. Now it would not be quite so egregious that officials are sent to correct a mistake purely of the Government's making purely of the Minister's making in his failure to recognise in the "No. 1" bill that inconsistencies were going to arise in the passage of that bill. All that Minister Andrew Little had to do was to swallow his pride just a little bit and acknowledge that the Government had been snookered into a position embarrassing though it may be—embarrassing though it may be—and exposing absolutely the flaws in this Government in that it passed under urgency the third reading of a bill which has inconsistencies which this bill the No. 2 bill and the SOP Darroch Ball which we know is going to accompany it because that has been foreshadowed by Darroch Ball in his magnificent speech where he referred—Darroch Ball: Oh sit down.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh Darroch Ball doesn't like having this pointed out but Darroch Ball I will be watching with great interest for the SOP that that member brings to this House in the committee stage. But I want to get back to the officials just for a moment because not only were they required to work through the weekend and we're seeing a lot of that at the moment—officials being required to work all through the weekend so that this House can consider pieces of legislation in this case under urgency; the rationale for which escapes me but as I say I wasn't in the House last week. I was not taking part in this debate. But those very officials have been sent away to correct a mistake not made by them—it wasn't a drafting mistake it wasn't a policy mistake; the mistake lies fairly and squarely with the Minister Andrew Little. Where is the responsibility taken for that? No he has spent much of today under urgency blaming everyone else but himself. Well I think that members over the other side say the New Zealand public are watching. Yes the New Zealand public are watching and the New Zealand public are not silly. They can see exactly what's happened. This Government has been well and truly snookered. I want to refer to the lack of select committee hearings in terms of process with this No. 2 bill and the assertion again by the Minister Andrew Little that this anomaly this inconsistency in provisions about enrolment for sentenced prisoners is going to be corrected through this No. 2 bill. How do we know that? How do we know that—they didn't get it right the first time? How can this House how can that New Zealand public who are watching this debate under urgency be assured that there isn't another mistake contained within this No. 2 bill? Well there is no way for the public to know. There is no way for this Parliament to know—and there is no way for this Parliament to know because there has been no external scrutiny—Hon Andrew Little: Yes there has been.Hon JACQUI DEAN: —of the provisions in this bill—Hon Andrew Little: Yes there has been. The member knows it.Hon JACQUI DEAN: —which seek to remedy inconsistencies and when any member over this side of the House begins to make a new point it fires up the Minister who goes by his well-earned term "Angry Andy". I beg your pardon Madam Speaker; I should say angry Andrew Little gets fired up. The abuse I'm afraid is quite extraordinary. There have been two references in the course of this debate to mental health. How can that be from a caring Government? That's another question for the Minister in the committee stage of this bill: how can it be said that Minister of Justice gets up in this House and flippantly makes references to mental health in respect of the Opposition in this Parliament? How can that be from a Government whose cornerstone is kindness? And if we will recall the Speech from the Throne it put as one of its strongest tenets to address mental illness. Where's the inconsistency in that? Well it's absolutely glaringly obvious to those of us on this side of the House and I wonder what Andrew Geddis will think about this bill. What will Andrew Geddis think? He is a well-known legislative observer who gets consulted widely. What will that member of the public think about this bill? Well we will never know will we because there was not a select committee process. The first bill was flawed. The second bill is even worse. We do not support this bill."