Davis KelvinHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I'd just like to respond to a number of the issues that have been raised. Clause 7 talks about the police cells. Again Mark Mitchell said we might need more police cells because there might be a spike in offending. Well it'd have to be a pretty huge spike because there are a thousand beds coming online in prisons. So we are creating capacity that way but also with the safe reduction of the prison population we're creating capacity in that area as well. In fact we've done so well we've been so efficient and so effective that the High Impact Innovation Programme has in itself saved about 106000 bed nights. Just doing quick calculations that's the equivalent of reducing the prison population by 290 prisoners. Think about the cost of that. If it costs over $100000 a year to house a prisoner the High Impact Innovation team has saved a couple of dozen million dollars just by reducing the prison population safely. So it's going to have to be a pretty high spike.But here's the thing: even if there was a high spike and we did run out of capacity we can still use police cells. It's in the Act as it stands: section 34 Detention of prisoners". I'll read it to you: "A person who is sentenced to imprisonment must serve the sentence in a corrections prison. (2) Despite subsection (1) any person sentenced to imprisonment may be detained in a Police jail on 1 or more occasions … A person may be held in custody on remand in—(a) any police jail". So it's already there in the Act as it stands and here we have the Opposition railing against something that is totally irrelevant. Detention of prisoners can be in police cells. They really need to get on top of the issue.The whole rehabilitation plan stuff—we've covered that in amended section 51 inserted by clause 11. Prisoners already have to have a rehabilitation plan as part of their management plan—they're flogging a dead horse there. Of course the legal ambiguity around the cell sharing—oh and cell sharing sorry is in Part 2 so I'll leave it there.The fact of the matter is the Opposition—they need to explain why they are opposing this bill when if we look at new clause 25C(3)(vii) section 108 amended we're changing it so that people cannot "promote or encourage hostility towards any group of persons on 1 or more of the grounds specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993." So by opposing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 392 what they're saying is that they're open to promoting and encouraging hostility towards any group of persons on one or more grounds specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act. That's what they're doing by opposing this SOP. They're actually opposing us making it impossible for prisoners to actually promote hostility towards those groups of people. So they need to defend their position. We're trying to make people safer; they're not. They're opposing us trying to make—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No we're not.Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —members of the community safe. I hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith saying "No we're not opposing it." but they are. He stood up and said "We're opposing this. We're opposing this SOP that is going to make it harder for people specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act"—for hostility to be encouraged towards them. He stood up not five minutes ago and said "We are opposing it." and now he's sitting over there chirping away saying "No we're not opposing it." Oh my goodness! Hand up if you heard him say he's opposing it. Even Willie Jackson heard and we know that Willie Jackson doesn't listen to a thing Dr Nick Smith says. Dr Nick Smith has said they are opposing this SOP and that means that they don't mind promotion or encouragement of hostility towards any group of persons on one or more of the grounds specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act and those are groups based on their ethnicity based on their sexual orientation based on their religious beliefs.I think that the National Party the negative National Party needs to stand up and explain why on earth they're actually not supporting that particular part. We say negative National Party; there is one glimmer of light and that is Chris Penk. He stood up he praised the Corrections officers and I thank him for being the one positive beam of light in the National Party."