Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's time to take down the curtains because the window dressing that's the three-strikes regime is coming down. It's time that this House moves past window dressing dog-whistling and the political posturing in the law and order space and started a real debate about what actually reduces recidivist offending and what actually reduces the number of victims in New Zealand. In order for us to learn from our past mistakes such as three strikes it's important that we do three things: (1) what is the initial three-strikes bill and what did it set out to achieve; (2) why it failed; and (3) what does work to actually prevent crime? And I'm sure Mr Goldsmith would be interested in learning that. First of all the three-strikes regime was a law that was introduced back in 2010 and it created a mandatory sentencing regime for over 40 serious offences. In doing so it took away the discretionary power of judges to be able to fully consider the context of the offending as well as the personal circumstances of the person standing before the judge. When we look back at communications back in 2010 it's important to try and understand what was going on in the minds of those decision makers and one that really amazed me was the first press release put out by Judith Collins. At the end of the press release where you have the questions and answers the first question was Why has this policy been agreed?" and the first line back is "The National and ACT parties both campaigned heavily on law and order in the election campaign." That's the answer they gave to the purpose of this bill. That I think put simply shows it was a political promise that gave the appearance of being tough on crime. This is important and I want to make it clear: the truth is that the courts could already impose sentences equivalent to those under the three-strikes regime when that was appropriate. These options will continue to be available to the court once this legislation is repealed and I'm going to lay out what those options are: preventive detention for repeat serious offenders public protection and extended supervision orders minimum periods of imprisonment and maximum penalties up to life imprisonment. What goes further to the point is this was just window dressing. I think the last point I'll make on this is on the very implementation of this bill. In those first few months when three strikes became law in New Zealand there was absolutely no integrated data system within in the Ministry of Justice to keep tabs on how those strikes were being recorded. My job along with a few others back then was to manually monitor when an offender with a strikable offence was coming up before the courts. A phone call would have to be put through to the prosecutor to alert them that someone was coming up before the courts and this needed to be done at sentencing. We even had a red rubber stamp made with "strikable offence" that would help remind them in the court. More than a few were missed and each week we drew straws as to who was the unlucky official that had to front up at the Minister's meeting and tell Judith Collins how many had got away that week. I think it's important to get back to the point of why the three-strikes legislation failed. Since its introduction the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—all three have ruled that this law was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights and I think that's an important point to note. When we consider the distorting effect on our worst sentence outcomes you have to really weigh up and say "What is this bill doing?" There is no consistent pattern to changing crime rates before and after the three-strikes regime became law. The Ministry of Justice's paper on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act which was the three-strikes bill quite clearly stated "The proposals will add substantial direct cost to the justice system without creating any significant improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation." Those justice advisers were actively prevented from appearing in front of the Justice Committee and it was clear from the outset that this law would do nothing to reduce the drivers of crime. As we've already been asked by Dr Goldsmith that there is no evidence well I would like to provide evidence that has been provided through the Ministry of Justice in their brief that recorded the three highest-volume strike offences over the period of time from 1996 to 2014: serious assault sexual assault and robbery offences. The report concluded that there were few changes that could be contributed to the three-strikes law—no change. So while three strikes failed to do any deterrence as it promised to do what it did do was further entrench the over-representation of Māori in our prison population. Māori are almost nine times more likely to receive a first strike than those of European or other ethnicities and over 18 times more likely to receive a second strike. So what does work? In summing up I think it's important that we do say what does work. The drivers of crime are complex and intergenerational. They are not a sound bite. They are not a strapline. They are people's lives—both victims' and offenders' and their families'. This highlights the need and commitment for this Government to make a pragmatic and evidence-based approach to build an effective justice system. This will ensure that over the long term we prevent further crime and victimisation not just by calling out "tougher on crime" whenever we can but by providing better support to those involved in the justice system to break the cycle of reoffending and that means evidence-based solutions that actually work in order to reduce reoffending and the causes of crime. Here's a few examples that we're doing already: the alcohol and other drug treatment court provides an evidence-based best-practice treatment pathway that includes intensive monitoring case management drug testing and mentoring; Te Pae Oranga rolled out with 14 more in the last Budget and again the evidence provided is that recidivist offending is reduced by addressing the root causes of crime; Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts which are designed to re-engage young people with their culture and have better long-term outcomes; Te Ao Mārama reforming our court system—another one. We are also giving police the tools to target organised crime as announced already by Ministers Hipkins and Allan in July as well as passing legislation around firearms prohibition orders. For too long our justice system has been used as a political football. Window dressing such as three-strikes legislation has prevented a real focus on how we work together and reduce offending and victimisation. I hope that the repeal of this bill—three strikes—is a stake in the ground that marks a new chapter for the justice sector in New Zealand one that is based on evidence and based on best outcomes for our people. I commend it to the House."