Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The member Clare Curran who's just resumed her seat laid down the challenge as to why National opposes Part 1 of this bill and I want to set it out very clearly for her. When this bill was developed the National Cabinet included a specific provision and legal requirement for an individualised rehabilitation plan for every prisoner. A deliberative decision was made by the new Government to remove that. We think that's a mistake and we think those individual rehabilitation plans should have still been part of Part 1. The second reason we oppose this bill is because you're breaking your promises. We're old fashioned on this side of the Chamber. If you say something to the voters we actually think you should carry it through and do as you say. Both the Green Party and the Labour Party campaigned on getting rid of double-bunking. The irony of this bill is that far from getting rid of double-bunking it makes double-bunking easier. For members on that side of the Chamber when they ask why we are opposing the bill it is because we think it's fraudulent to go to the voters—and I say it to the Green Party—with a specific policy saying that you are going to get rid of double-bunking and then vote for a bill that makes double-bunking easier. Then the third reason for Clare Curran's edification why we oppose this bill is that since this bill came to the House we had the appalling failure by the Department of Corrections allowing the most serious criminal ever to be before our prison system and our court system charged with the deliberate murder of over 51 people and as many as 50 others seriously injured and that person while on remand being able to write letters. I say and I think my colleagues on this side of the Chamber say that we must better protect the public from that sort of incident. All I've heard from members opposite is that it's about prisoners' rights. Actually it's about protecting the public from those sorts of acts of mass murder and terrorism. We're not satisfied that the provisions in this bill adequately provide the protection that New Zealand will never ever be the laughing stock of the world that we charge a person with terrorism and while they're behind bars they're writing letters to fanatics around different parts of the world encouraging others to commit repeats of that awful atrocity that occurred in Christchurch. So I say again to Clare Curran and members opposite: National is opposing this part for very good reason. The Government should not have taken those extra requirements for individualised rehabilitation plans out of this bill. It should not be breaking its promise around double-bunking. If National was in charge of this bill the provisions around letter writing would better respond to that awful embarrassing failure that occurred at Pāremoremo prison in allowing New Zealand's most serious ever charged offender to be able to carry on writing letters.When I hear the Ginny Andersens saying that we're not focused enough on the rights of prisoners actually we make no apologies for saying that we're here primarily to ensure that our corrections laws protect New Zealanders from those sorts of offenders and we're not convinced that that's the Government's priority. The Government's priority is more about emptying people out of prisons and the sort of advocacy of prisoners' rights and forgetting about the very important rights of the public to be safe.In my view those three reasons are very sound reasons why the National team is not supporting Part 1 of this bill. We would be delighted if Government members would reconsider and realise they should do what they said around double-bunking that they should strengthen further the provisions around letter writing and thirdly they should include those individualised rehabilitation plans.