Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Can I assure the member Mahesh Bindra that Mr Billy Weepu is not scary. Having played alongside him in the Parliamentary Rugby Team I can say he is quite the nice chap and despite his size he has been brought down by many small men in the Opposition. But I digress. Most of the discussion around this particular bill has been around getting bang for buck. When we look at the increased use of electronic monitoring as indicated by the regulatory impact statement it actually does talk about that cost. Members on this side of the Chamber have mentioned that cost and asked whether the taxpayers are getting bang for their buck. Will this help secure our communities? Will this help our communities feel safer when they know that opening up the eligibility for those to receive electronic monitoring will not only bring a cost with that electronic monitoring—estimates of $3500 per person per offender. That might not sound like much to some people but when we are talking about the risk it poses to our communities—$3500. I am sure some will not mind paying that but why would we pay that when there are still serious questions about this equipment? Let us be very clear here. There are some serious questions about this equipment. Mr Goff has given fantastic examples of where this equipment has failed. We have already heard that the Law and Order Committee was told that this was as safe as houses"—although that is questionable under the housing policy of this Government—that it is "safe as" and that the community can feel safe. Then the entire country witnessed the actual thing being cut by a normal pair of scissors and by a pretty good bloke in Mr Weepu. We have got to ask these questions about the cost: $3500. We know that the eligibility will be wider for those offenders and there are still questions there. The electronic monitoring for persons temporary released from custody or temporary removed from prison—there are still some questions. As a member of Parliament I have been approached many times by whānau who are looking for the release of members of whānau who are locked up looking for them to be released so that they are able to attend funerals—tangihanga—or to visit whānau members who are in the departure lounge on the way out of this world. There do seem to be—and I want to highlight the point raised by Mr Davis—some serious inconsistencies there some serious inconsistencies. I have had those cases come through our offices where some of the worst offenders have been granted that leave—and good for them. Some of those on the lesser end of the scale have not been granted leave and when questioned no information has been provided to us or the families—to us or the families. Although I appreciate that perhaps this might allow for better monitoring of those who do get given leave to attend such events as a funeral those inconsistencies are still there. Those inconsistencies are still there and will cause some challenges for those who are refused that particular leave. I can only imagine what that might mean for the corrections officers in the prisons who have to look after them. I do want to speak briefly about the offenders who are still within the prison grounds but not in the secure area. Although I appreciate that they are still within the grounds but not necessarily the high security areas I wonder whether this is actually the best way of supervising them because clearly if they are not able to go out into the community and regardless of having served their sentence they are still required to be within the grounds of a prison—I wonder well maybe the GPS monitoring is actually not the best way. These people still need 24-hour human supervision constant contact with the officers and constant contact with the right people to make sure that these people do not reoffend that they do not slip away because I would hate to think that horrible crimes will take place when those types of offenders who have—"