Tuiono Teanau; Webb DuncanCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before we move to the next call just some reflections. I want to acknowledge that there have been a lot of questions around the removal of the 6A part the Tiriti provision. A lot of that stuff has been addressed. There is still some new material coming up but I would encourage members to not repeat arguments that have been made by themselves or by other members.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair and I acknowledge that guidance. There is a point in clause 6 that I did want to make that hasn't been touched on and that's in clause 6 where it says After section 6(1)(h) insert: (ha)" it's on page 7 of the bill as reported back. The issue I intend to raise pervades this legislation and it's this: that this is about "accused prisoners may so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances within the resources available be given access to activities including non-offence-based programmes" and so on. Now the law does generally one of three things: it prohibits something it requires something or it gives someone a power to do something. My concern with this clause and clauses like it—and there are several through the legislation—is that it does none of those things. It just loosely waves in the direction of what—because it's clear that the Corrections department can provide programmes but it doesn't require anything.In particular the expectation being placed on the department is watered down by at least three qualifiers because one of the challenges that we've heard from the Ombudsman is that the department simply doesn't provide sufficient rehabilitative programmes and people get to the end of their stay—however that may occur—and they haven't received the attention that they need and deserve. So in this clause and in other clauses throughout it says "accused prisoners may"—so it's not mandatory—"so far as is reasonable"—the first qualifier—"and practicable"—the second qualifier—"in the circumstances within the resources available"—the third qualifier. So if we have a genuine intention to deliver these programmes what on earth is the point of this? Because it basically says "If you feel like it; if you want to; if you can be bothered; if you've got the time available and the staff spare and some space."Now if we are genuine in providing good programmes both to accused prisoners and other prisoners then why on earth are we not saying "Corrections is required to provide programmes." Now I accept and the Minister well knows through exchanges we've had that Corrections has not met minimum standards let alone exemplary standards in respect of how it addresses and provides for prisoners in terms of their basic rights. But we need to do more and a clause like this which says "Accused prisoners don't have an entitlement to any programmes but they can have them if the chief executive and department wants to give them as far as is reasonable as far as is practicable and within the resources available." it may as well say nothing you know because that's essentially what it does.Now I think there is a genuine expectation both by the community who want to see people come out of prison better than when they went in and by the people who are detained to get the help they need. This can't be dismissed by saying they do a great job because I'm sorry Minister they don't. We have the words of the Ombudsman on numerous reports and in person to the Justice Committee saying that's not the case.So I'm interested in whether the Minister would consider tightening this up and making it much more of an entitlement on the part of the detained person and an obligation on the part of the department to provide these kinds of programmes—rather than just a wish a loose wish. I'd be interested in the Minister's comments on that."