Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for this unexpectedly early opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Corrections Amendment Bill at this the second reading. [Member receives note] I've got a message to pass back to my colleague but I might leave that for later. We've heard discussion on both sides of the House relating to the good the bad and the ugly of this bill. I'll touch briefly on each of those with the good of course being the positive stuff that's in the bill—largely a result of good work from the previous Government—the bad being the positive work that hasn't been reflected in this but has been removed and I'll provide the ugly. Moving on quickly to the explanatory note of the bill looking at the general policy statement it's pretty hard to disagree with the broad intentions of it. It's saying that it's designed to improve the ability of … (the department) to safely and humanely manage prisoners:"—for example—"improve discipline and safety:" of prisoners and their fair treatment as well. I think the only objectionable thing in that is the doubly split infinitive—"to safely and humanely manage prisoners"—but really the key point there is what's not said. It's the Boyzone approach to legislative change: they've said it worst by saying nothing at all about rehabilitation. Colleagues on this side of the House have already touched on that and that's the theme to which I'll return in my remaining time. I should note of course being the second reading that we're principally concerned with reporting back from the select committee. I wasn't a member of the Justice Committee I think for any of the deliberation or consideration and so forth and I've done my best to understand the back and forth by reading the various reports and statements and so on. It's been more confusing not less to have heard some of the debate from the other side of the House about the comings and goings of the legislative process. I suppose it's inevitable in something that's got the word "Corrections" and "Amendment" in it that there'll be some confusion about what's the starting point and what's in and what's out but it seems in any case pretty clear that Supplementary Order Papers will be put forward by the Minister which will have an effect I suppose of making it a better piece of legislation in his mind. But certainly the state of it as we see it in front of us now is not one that we are ultimately able to support. On the subject of rehabilitation as has been mentioned technically it's to restore something to a former condition—perhaps to working order and so on—and that of course is a very worthy aim in relation to prisoners those who find themselves detained at Her Majesty's pleasure in the system. It's been certainly the philosophy of those on this side of the House through our time in Government—not least of all your good self Madam Deputy Speaker in a ministerial capacity I'm aware—to really focus on the importance of doing so not only for the benefit of those individuals themselves but also society more generally as a whole. Rehabilitation I suppose could be summed up by the phrase "Do the mahi get the treatment." if you'll excuse that slight play on the more usual statement around the value of that hard work that will pay off—just a little note to the Hon Peeni Henare whose contributions I always enjoy. But in relation to the explanatory note of the bill not having the weight of operative provisions it can be the case of course that the explanatory note can be used to interpret substantive provisions so that for example a management plan that's described in the Act itself as amended could actually be interpreted as a treatment plan or rehabilitation plan—perhaps by a slightly activist judge I suppose—if it was made clear in the explanatory note that that was the purpose of the legislation. Anyway that's a reasonably technical detail which at 9.53 on a Tuesday night I'll leave at that and I'll just return to the point I suppose about the shared cells—so-called—in the legislation aka double-bunking. I've actually done a bit of double-bunking myself in my previous life on submarines and containers as well—on an oil terminal in the Northern Arabian Gulf—so I can speak highly of the experience but not too highly I hasten to add. Of course the point that Dr Smith makes around the reversal of the presumption—whether double-bunking will be a valid option in any case—is a very well-made one. So I encourage members opposite to think on that and particularly in the context of statements that they've previously made again as highlighted by Dr Smith. At that point I leave my contribution there adding only that on this side of the House we feel unable to support the bill in the form that it's come back from select committee."