Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an interesting debate and an interesting week indeed in Parliament in relation to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. I join with others including the Minister the Hon Kelvin Davis who have acknowledged the work that is done by corrections officers. Their work is difficult and dangerous and these are non-trivial issues for us all to consider not only of course in terms of the substance of the offending and risk to community but also of course in terms of the human rights of all concerned.Obviously the constitutional element in terms of the court having made a ruling and Parliament deciding to respond to that is interesting in itself. I won't rehearse the ground that's been traversed already by others in relation to those other issues but I just acknowledge the Attorney-General's report on the inconsistency as he sees it with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of this bill and he identifies four different bases for that. One is the right of persons finally convicted not to be further punished—and we can have a discussion about whether there's punishment involved in terms of the programmes—freedoms of movement and peaceful assembly the right not to be arbitrarily detained and the right to natural justice.As other National Party members have already made pretty clear we do support the Government not only in terms of making the bill but also having this truncated process for the reasons that have been set out. So I will just make a couple of reflections on the fact that Parliament rightly must be able to declare its own intention in relation to bills and if it's the case historically that bills have been passed into law and the intention of Parliament at that time wasn't clear to the courts then it's incumbent on Parliament—so Parliament has not only the right but the responsibility—to offer some clarification and that's what we're doing here today.I'm just trying to get my head around it. I've only seen the bill relatively recently and likewise the Attorney General's report but I think what's happening is not so much that the courts have said that the legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—so it's not that they're making a declaration of inconsistency that we're needing to respond to—but they're interpreting it in a way that has a certain effect in the real world albeit that's one that they would regard as consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I know that's pretty gnarly stuff and quite complicated but I think it's worth us saying for the record that it's not that we are happy with the idea that we make law that's inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act albeit if there are sufficient policy justifications then we can. Lest anyone listening should think that we are totally blasé about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZ BORA) issues it's that we ultimately reserve the right to make decisions that are appropriate for a democratic institution. Courts are not democratic and if I say that that's not meant to sound dismissive or negative about them but their great beauty is that they're not democratically responsive. They shouldn't be subject to the baying of the crowds etc. But then again we in this place owe our position to responding to the needs and the desires of the community through elections and so on. So I think our constitutional arrangements are pretty good in that way. It means that in this case we're having discussions on Parliament working quite quickly to clarify its intention. I will leave my remarks there except only just to say if I may that I think it's been a really interesting discussion about the idea of whether the conditions that are being imposed are in the nature of a punishment as opposed to something that's for the benefit of the offenders. I think that perhaps because these are mandatory and they're imposed. In the language of the NZ BORA report they do have a punitive nature in addition to being rehabilitative. But I think it's probably fairer to characterise these as a continuation of the punishment that had already been imposed by the courts rather than a separate and additional one. So to my mind it's less of a double jeopardy - type situation and more of a matter of clarity in terms of the conditions on which a person may eventually be reintegrated into society. I join others on this side of the House and indeed the Minister and the Government in commending the bill to the House.