Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to take a very quick call and in fact just add a couple of questions—supplementaries I guess—to the questions of the member that just sat down Tamati Coffey because they revolve around the same topics.The first was the representative—and I know it's been brought up quite a number of times and you have answered questions Minister Little. First of all I think it's actually one of the most important clauses that's in there because it actually allows the family members to be able to get some reconciliation for their passed loved ones. I know that the Hon Kris Faafoi asked that there should be some consideration about widening the scope for the family members and I know that you answered that question.I'm wondering if there's been any consideration—and I'm specifically talking about clause 15(3) and (4). First of all clause 15(3) states the Secretary must decide as soon as is reasonably practicable whether the person can represent the convicted person". I know that there's the consideration about the family in the other considerations as well but is there any situation where they do lie let's just say within that framework and be a direct descendent i.e. a child or a grandchild or a brother or a sister that wouldn't necessarily be an able representative of that individual? I guess that moves on to clause 15(4) where it says "The Secretary's decision must be based on whether the representation concerned would be in the interests of the deceased convicted person."So in what circumstances—and I know that the circumstances of those individuals and their families would be quite varied and unique. So whether that comes down to the Secretary looking at them as individual separate very unique circumstances or whether there are a few boundaries or rules or regulations or considerations that are existing now that would be applied and used to filter before it got to that unique individual stage. So that's the first question for the Minister.The second one also revolves around the "no entitlement to compensation". That question has been brought up a couple of times and the Minister has answered. From what I can recall the Minister has explained it by saying that the main reason if not the only reason is because it's quite problematic. I'm not disagreeing with that at all but I'm wondering if there has been consideration through the select committee phase where the guidelines around compensation that already exist from the Ministry of Justice were used and/or considered to justify no compensation.From what I've read of what was on the Ministry of Justice website the clear difference I think or one of the differences between this situation we're talking about in this bill to normal compensation was that an individual was imprisoned because they broke the law and then they found that they didn't break that law. Whereas in this situation the law itself was expunged even though they did break the law.I know it sounds a little bit ambiguous but I think that if the Minister could explain whether or not that part of the Ministry of Justice guidelines was used or whether it was just simply because it was problematic and that was the end of the conversation. So those are the two questions if I could add them to the mix. Thank you."