Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. Following the Minister Kelvin Davis I'd just like to acknowledge the many women that have served in this Parliament and have done such a fantastic job—and we're sure there'll be many more to come in future generations of leadership and at the highest levels of our country. So congratulations to all those women MPs and to the role models that you have provided and also to the future generations of MPs that will come forward and no doubt deliver great results for our country going forward. So congratulations and our best wishes on this very special day for women MPs. It was very interesting in that speech from the Minister that he focused on a lot of things that weren't in the bill and he talked about very few things that were actually in the bill. I know that the Speaker is looking at me darkly but the reality is that—SPEAKER: Order! The member won't comment either on my rulings or the method by which I'm looking at him—even if the member is accurate in his description.Chris Penk: It's getting darker.Hon DAVID BENNETT: It's not as dark as some over there.But the Minister did mention one or two of the provisions in the bill and one of them was in regard to prison mail provisions. Now that's a late addition to this bill that wasn't in the original bill and that went through the committee stage. It's a result of what happened in the terrible tragedy earlier this year. Our thoughts are with all of those victims and their families at this very time. The pain that those families felt they had to relive through the Corrections department's failures to actively engage and do their job under the law that they already had. The Minister made it very clear at the time when those letters were released that there was sufficient legal basis for the department to stop those kinds of letters going out.Then why do we need more legislative change now? This legislative change doesn't stop that situation. The very bill that we're talking about here today is another attempt by this Minister to cover up for the failings of himself and his department. The reality is that the Department of Corrections failed New Zealanders at that time—and especially failed the victims of that terrible tragedy in Christchurch.The Minister may have said sorry at that time but he didn't take responsibility for what actually happened. Because the Minister had the control over his department the Minister should have engaged with his department from day one saying that I don't want to have any mistakes here." The Minister from day one should have got his departmental heads in and said "This will not happen under my watch" and that "I will not put the Prime Minister in a position where she has to defend me and my department." The Minister should have taken action from day one when that prisoner went into the prison system because he is the most high profile prisoner in the New Zealand system. The Minister did none of those things. The Minister sat there and just hoped it wouldn't happen—or he didn't even think it would happen; just didn't even think at all. That's the reality of what happened in that situation. The Minister didn't go and get sufficient updates from his department. The Minister didn't go out there and actually take advantage of the rules that he already had in legislation.Now the Minister is attempting through an amendment to this bill to show that he is doing something. Well he's not doing anything more than what he had the power to do then. This doesn't give him any more rules or ability or power than what he had in the past in practice. He failed to do his job at that time. The Minister cannot fail to do his job and then try and cover it up a few months later through legislation that doesn't actually assist him or his department in any meaningful way.That's why this legislation is a farce. It's a meaningless attempt to cover the tracks and to say "Oh we couldn't have done anything at that point in time" and that we need to have this legislation now. I asked the Minister what within this legislation would stop those letters going out at that time. Nothing—he had exactly the same powers at that time he didn't use them and he knows that. He should have taken responsibility from that rather than make the Prime Minister take responsibility at that time.Raymond Huo: What are you talking about?Hon DAVID BENNETT: The members don't even understand what I'm talking about. We're talking about the release of letters that came from the terrorist in Christchurch that the Minister's department let go around the world. We don't know where the recordings went for the phone calls from that member of the prison system who made numerous phone calls. They were recorded weren't they Minister? Oh the Minister doesn't even know where the phone calls have gone. In his written questions he's even answered saying that they were recorded. So there were recorded phone calls that have gone around the world. There were other letters from that member of the prison system that have gone around the world as well—presumably because the Minister won't release those details. If he was clear and he was open and transparent about it as the Government were supposed to be then he would release all details of all correspondence from that prisoner instead of coming here a few months later trying to pass legislation to cover himself. And that's what we're doing here today and that's why the National Party is not supporting it.Another big part of the bill that the Minister failed to talk about in his speech is around cell sharing. Now I remember that for this Minister when we were in Government and he was in Opposition double-bunking was so terrible it couldn't happen it's an abuse of the rights of prisoners—it just couldn't happen—and now he's legislating to allow it to happen. He's actually making it legal in any form or context to have double-bunking. So why didn't the Minister talk about that in his speech? Did the Minister come out and be open and transparent about that in his speech? No he very conveniently didn't mention it at all. That's openness and transparency from this Minister!And then we go to the new strategy for prisoners. The line the Minister used was "to humanise the prison experience." Well first of all it's not an experience. Being in prison is not an experience that someone goes through as part of a lifetime journey; being in prison is because that person has offended against the laws of this country and against the people of this country and deserves punishment. It's not some kind of experience and it's not to be humanised in the way that that Minister wants to. He doesn't actually believe that anybody should be in prison. He said that at the start of the year on TV; he said that "I don't believe anybody should be in prison." He is just trying to make it a humanised experience—that's what the plan of this Minister has been.Hon Kelvin Davis: You're making stuff up.Hon DAVID BENNETT: No I'm not. I can show you the TV documentary and the exact question and that was his exact answer.Hon Kelvin Davis: Those who should be in prison will be in prison.Hon DAVID BENNETT: "Those who should be in prison will be in prison."—well that's his other line isn't it? "Those that should be in prison will be in prison." And then he's so proud saying "Oh we've reduced the prison population." Well the prison population has only been reduced in theory because they've moved people out of the prison system into the community—that is what they have done. They have actually put more people into the community through earlier bail more community service—Hon Kelvin Davis: The judges do that.Hon DAVID BENNETT: "The judges do it"—they say "The judges do it." We just had an example of a judge making a judgment on the weekend around drugs and the—SPEAKER: Order! Can I invite both members—the Minister not to invite irrelevant comment by irrelevant interjections and the member to spend his last minute getting back to the bill.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well it's a very important part of the bill—SPEAKER: The judgment at the weekend is not part of the bill. Carry on.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well it is because the Minister's talked about how they've reduced the prison population. One thing to reduce the prison population he could have done is rehabilitation which is a key part of this original legislation which he took out. The whole bill was around rehabilitation when Louise Upston the former Minister set this bill up—and all those clauses were taken out. The only bit that was really relevant they've taken out and then they've filled it in with other things to try and cover their mistakes.So this Minister has had the opportunity to do some real things in justice and in the corrections system and he has failed. We have a bill here today that is an attempt to make it look like they're doing something in a system where the reality is that he doesn't believe anyone should be in prison. He thinks it's an experience that should be humanised. He doesn't actually take on the role seriously and he doesn't look after those victims out there as we have seen with the victims of Christchurch. That is the disappointing part of this Minister and what we're seeing in this legislation. Thank you Mr Speaker."