Bindra MaheshMAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): We have supported this bill through the first reading and through the second reading. The reason for that was that we do actually support the intent of this bill which is to bring the offenders and bailees in line with the offenders inside the wire inside the prison so those inside the prison do have permanent and blanket restrictions on consumption of alcohol and drugs as we know. Prisons are smoke-free and we claim that our prisons are alcohol-free and drug-free and Corrections staff have done a great job at ensuring that those policies of smoke-free prisons are effectively implemented. But there have been instances of those rules being violated but those are not really really concerning to us. What is concerning is that the offenders were released on bail or on temporary removal or on temporary release and had these restrictions placed on them. However there was no mechanism in place to ensure that they actually complied with those restrictions and there were no consequences if they did not. This bill will ensure that those on the outside those in the communities whether they are on bail on temporary release or on parole are actually answerable for their violation of those restrictions. That was the reason that we supported this bill throughout although we did have some reservations about how this bill is going to be actually administered. We were told that those offenders on parole and on temporary release will be managed by Corrections and those who are on bail will be drug tested randomly though by the police. We did have some confusion about the modalities and the resources. At the moment the police do not have resources to carry out their core functions of crime prevention so we wonder how they are going to be drug testing these people on bail when they do not have resources to respond to emergencies. That was one of the concerns that we had. However we still supported the intent of the bill. At present when the offenders are on parole they are managed by way of drug testing—again random drug testing—by Corrections. We had pointed out that at present the situation has no requirement that the chief executive of Corrections communicates with the Commissioner of Police while formulating these rules. We were told that there was no need for such a requirement because we have faith in both entities and we have faith that they both will communicate. Well if that was the case where was the communication when—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.MAHESH BINDRA: When we broke for dinner I was speaking about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 163 and the intent behind it. The intent was that the amendment that was sought in that SOP was that both Corrections and Police will be absolutely required to communicate with each other and not just expected to. That is the ambiguity that this SOP sought to take care of. However the Minister has taken the view that there is no necessity for such an amendment as Corrections and Police already communicate with each other. Well Minister if that was the case what happened to the communication when Phillip John Smith escaped and went right up to Brazil causing us huge embarrassment internationally? What happened to their communication when Tony Robertson raped and killed Blessie Gotingco?