Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There are three key points I wish to make in this committee stage debate on this bill. This bill is about broken promises like so many areas of policy by the current Government. It's about a policy that is soft on crime and it's also about incompetence and I want to talk about each of those three issues.But first of all can I just respond quickly to the point by Ginny Andersen. She says that the focus of corrections policies needs to be on the rights of offenders. Well I'm sorry; we disagree. It is our view that people are sent to prison because they have offended against society and they need to be held accountable and I on this side of the House make no apologies for curtailing their rights. One of the key issues in Part 1 deals with letters by prisoners. I have never been so embarrassed as a New Zealander to read newspapers around the world pointing out that the worst terrorist the horrific man that is accused of committing the crimes in Christchurch was able to perpetuate his hate by writing letters out of the Department of Corrections—and members opposite want to talk about prisoners' rights. Well I want to talk about public safety and I say to the Corrections people and I say to the Minister you failed New Zealanders in your duty to keep us safe from the worst criminal in the history of New Zealand by allowing those letters to be distributed by that seriously accused offender.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the rights of New Zealanders is to ensure that that criminal justice system can operate effectively and can secure a conviction of an accused person. One of the things that we have a responsibility to do in this House—Hon Amy Adams: What's the point of order? This is a debate.Hon Chris Hipkins: —as much as—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. Points of order are heard in silence.Hon Amy Adams: Well that isn't one.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You can stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Amy Adams: I withdraw and apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you and be silent or you'll be leaving.Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Chairman as much as the right of free speech should be jealously guarded the member previously referred to the accused and it's important that he continues to do so rather than presume a conviction because to do so undermines the trial process and that is actually very important. This is something that the media are working very carefully to do and we have a responsibility as members in this House to do the same thing as well.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order I clearly referred to him as the accused of the horrific crime. The issue remains the same—that while he is on remand he has been allowed to send letters raising issues of hate that are an embarrassment to New Zealand. This part of the bill specifically deals with the issue of letters and I was entirely appropriate.Hon Chris Hipkins: I'm not questioning the member's ability to raise issues around the alleged offender.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!Hon Chris Hipkins: It's just that he has to continue—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!Hon Chris Hipkins: —to refer to him as that. Sorry.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I listened very carefully to the debate. I'm not sure what the member's actually asking for except my opinion. The content of what the Hon Dr Smith said although contentious was actually in order in my opinion. I think all members need to be careful when discussing things and people who are before the courts. It's an ongoing issue that we do not breach any of those rules. I'm listening carefully and it's really good if both sides of the Chamber observe that. I know that the Hon Dr Smith does fly close to that edge. He's been a member for a very long time. I know he knows where that edge is.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The issue here is a serious one. There is no question of the rules of trial. The issue is that a remand prisoner charged with the deaths of 51 New Zealanders in the most horrific attack in the history of New Zealand in the custody of the Department of Corrections was able to freely send letters around the world promoting terrorism and further hate crimes. Members on this side of the House say it's wrong and members over on the other side of the House can talk all they like about the rights of prisoners but it's wrong it's embarrassing it's a failure and we make no apologies for holding the Department of Corrections and this Government to account for that failure. The Minister in the chair the Hon Kelvin Davis needs to be answerable for the provisions in Part 1 of the bill and assure this Parliament that the amendments that are being put in place will ensure that that mistake that potentially deadly error will never ever happen again.The second point I want to make is about broken promises. The Minister in the chair for nine years raged against double-bunking in prisons—and do you know what this bill does? It makes double-bunking in prisons easier. Is there a member on this side of the House that can remember Kelvin Davis saying I want to be the Minister of Corrections so that double-bunking will be easier for the department."? I don't remember the Greens saying that. In fact the Greens in their specific election promise said they were going to ban double-bunking—and this bill makes it easier. That is a broken promise in anyone's books.Now I want to come to the contribution of Jenny Andersen about the issue of rehabilitation—Ginny Andersen: Ginny.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Ginny. The Minister in the chair the Hon Kelvin Davis said that this bill was first developed during a National Cabinet. Yes and I was part of those discussions. And do you know what we had in this bill Ms Andersen? What we had in this bill was a very specific requirement that there be a rehabilitation plan for every prisoner. Now wouldn't that be a good thing? That's what National wanted to put in the bill and Labour took it out. It's been removed from the bill and do you know why they said they took it out? Because the Department of Corrections without the legal requirement doesn't need the requirement to do it. Well I have to tell you I've seen some "yes" Ministers in my day. If members opposite including in the Labour Party and the Green Party truly believed in rehabilitation as we on this side do they would put a legal requirement in the legislation for an individual rehabilitation plan because that is an area where we agree. And this Parliament can talk rehabilitation all it likes it needs to pass the laws that will strengthen our rehabilitation because that is the area where we need to make significant improvement. Part 1 of this bill has huge gaps and we can do much better."