Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): For all the two contributions from Government members we have not heard an explanation to the actual provisions in the bill. We heard about parliamentary rugby. We talked about giant American-sized prisons. They're not in this part. We heard about many other issues about prisoner numbers—all sorts of things—but Government members including the Greens will not answer the very critical question and that is: why did the Labour Party and the Green Party campaign on a policy of getting rid of double-bunking and now we have a bill that makes double-bunking legally easier?The House is deafening because what has occurred is just dishonest. If you read the Green Party policy if you read the Labour Party policy what is in clause 35 of this bill replacing regulation 66 is a direct contradiction of your statements Mr Davis. Would you like me to read your statements for you? If I was Minister of Corrections I would be cracking down on double-bunking and making it harder." Those are the words of Kelvin Davis. If I take the Green Party they said "The bottom line for us is the Nelson Mandela standard of prison care including the abolition of double-bunking." This bill—everybody in the House agrees—and this replacement regulation 66 makes it easier for the Department of Corrections to introduce double-bunking. I just think it shows a complete lack of integrity by the Government that they can campaign on one thing do the opposite and not provide a single explanation to this House as to why they are advocating a provision that is so much in contradiction with what they said.Their silence is deafening. I remember in Government there wasn't a single Corrections bill on which the Green Party wouldn't be taking multiple calls. Aren't they meant to be the champions of human rights and prisoners' rights? Where have they been this afternoon? They have been absolutely silent. The submission that we received at the Justice Committee from the Human Rights Commission was directly opposed to clause 35 replacement Regulation 66. Why are the Greens voting for it? No explanation at all. No explanation from any member of the select committee. It is simply—well I hear the Minister of State Services. Why did the Minister of State Services campaign?Hon Chris Hipkins: Why bring me into it? I didn't say anything.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right. But perhaps you might provide an explanation because the House deserves an explanation. It deserves an explanation as to why the parties in Government the Labour and Green parties didn't just a little bit—it wasn't like it was some minor piece in their policy. A core part of their policy was to reduce in the case of Labour—in the case of the Greens abolish—double-bunking and this bill does the opposite. When the Labour Party and the Green Party reflect while their poll ratings are plummeting while New Zealanders have lost trust while the public believes this Government is not delivering on its promises—look no further than Regulation 66 of this Corrections bill. That is the exact opposite of what parties in Government said they would do if they were privileged to form a Government of New Zealand. It's actually bad for Corrections but actually it's bad for our democracy when members opposite behave so dishonestly as they have on this clause."