Goldsmith Paul; Edmonds BarbaraHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): To the extent that that member's questions fall within Part 2 of the amendments to the legislation I'm happy to provide a response that recognises that first whilst we're removing the strike warnings—and I understand that there were submitters that gave evidence in the select committee processes from those that had received these warnings. I understand that the general consensus was that there wasn't any awareness of what a strike warning was. I actually understand that one submitter said that Nicole McKee was the first person who had asked her what it was. There's no evidence to show whether on the statistics for the increase in—or reduction rather is what we'd be looking for: a reduction in violent criminal offending. There's no anecdotal evidence from the courts the judiciary police officers or those that have been through the system as a striker—first second or third—that the deterrent component had been useful. But that brief remark aside with respect to the strike warnings yes we're removing the reference to the strike warnings because they no longer will have a function. What we are not removing are the offences. What we are not removing is the ability of the judiciary to be able to apply the sentencing regime to each and every single one of these serious violent offences. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you. I'm just looking at clause 22(4) here where it does list in alphabetical order the offences that will no longer be the subject of a warning if Part 2 is passed. Throughout this debate we've heard as a sort of a—there's been a number of reasons given for this repeal legislation. They're a little bit fluid and they're teased out rather than stated. But one of them sotto voce is the idea that some of these offences aren't really significant and people are sent to prison for long periods of time for doing relatively low-level crimes. So I'm looking at this list and I'm seeing sexual violation I'm seeing sexual connection with a child I'm seeing murder attempted murder I'm seeing injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm I'm seeing commission of crime with a firearm I'm seeing poisoning with intent to cause grievous bodily harm I'm seeing kidnapping I'm seeing aggravated burglary I'm seeing aggravated robbery and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to rob or assault with intent to rob in specified circumstances. I suppose the question I have to the Minister is which of these crimes—and I also see discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Which of these does she think is not serious or has the potential for people to be convicted and sentenced for unduly long periods such that removing the warning and repealing the Act is justified on that ground? So we've got the list there the whole list of all—conspiracy to murder was one of them. Counselling or attempting to procure a murder—there's another one. The list of offences to my mind are all very serious. They're high-level. I don't see for example possession of cannabis or speeding or failing to have one's warrant of fitness up to date or anything like that—no trivial offences which is in the public mythology around this legislation getting people drawn into it. There's nothing about possession of drugs at all in that list of offending. So I'd be very keen to get a clear sense from the Minister which of these crimes she thinks has the potential to lead to these perverse outcomes that are used to justify the repeal of this Act.BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.