Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Chair. The last time I got called Grant Robertson" I think so that's a good start.Hon Member: It's appropriate anyway.Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's right. It's a pleasure to take a call. Look can I start by saying that I just want to quickly go over the numbers. The other spokespeople will talk to the other areas of the justice portfolio: corrections courts police and Attorney-General.The total annual and permanent appropriations for Vote Justice in 2018-19 were $478989 million compared with $551123 million estimated actual expenditure in 2017-18. This was actually a decrease of $72134 million. In all fairness although that was a major decrease we did have the new justice precinct that was delivered in Christchurch and that of course involved some upfront capital costs that would not reoccur. However it's still a pretty uninspiring appropriation and I find it sad that actually the biggest new investment is for money that's being put into an initiative around the 2020 general election. You could argue that actually that's more about us than anyone else so I feel that that money could have been used in much better areas like victim support services the National Home Safety Service or our community law centres.I just want to very quickly touch on the reforming of our criminal justice system—and I know that we've got our criminal justice summit that's fast approaching in August. I've had a meeting with the Minister and I made it very clear to him. I said "If you can come up with some good criminal justice reform that we can see will have genuine benefits and gains for the country and for our communities then we'll support those—we'll get behind them." That's what I came to Parliament for: to make the country better not worse; to make it safer not less safe. But I said "If you put up proposals like we've seen recently around the repeal of the three-strikes legislation then we'll take a very firm position against that."Chlöe Swarbrick: How much safer has that made the country Mark?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'm sorry what was that?Chlöe Swarbrick: How much safer does that make the country?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I've just been asked by Chlöe Swarbrick how much safer that's made the country. The three-strikes legislation has been shown to be successful as a deterrent when you look at the numbers reducing from the first strike to the second strike to the third strike.Chlöe Swarbrick: Correlation doesn't imply causation.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Let me just give you one example and you can respond to this—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well actually you're talking to the Chairperson not to members across the House.Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'm sorry Madam Chair and I realise that I don't have much time—although I may seek a second call. So let me give you one example from when we had this debate in the House around the three-strikes legislation.I was contacted by a second female corrections officer—not the original one that we talked about that had her case trivialised because it was referred to as a pinch on the bottom; but a second female corrections officer—that contacted me and said that she too had been the victim of an indecent assault in the workplace and that the offender had been convicted on a second strike. Do you know what she said to me? She said to me the best message she could get from her country was to say that they took it seriously enough that that offender got a second strike. So what is your comment to that? What would you respond to that—because I'm very very interested to hear. This is a victim. This is someone that has actually been victimised. This is real; it's not in this House. This happened to a female corrections officer who clearly had stated and said—Chlöe Swarbrick: Serious sex crimes went up. That's what happened.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —that the best message for her was that her country took that offending against her seriously enough that the offender had a second strike.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look order! I'm sorry. This is a debate on the Estimates OK. The member's had her opportunity to make her case. I would ask that she gives this member the opportunity to make his case.Hon MARK MITCHELL: So take a call. I've just laid out a very clear example for you that for the general public this actually makes them feel safer. It makes them feel that actually as a Parliament we're taking it seriously. So I ask you to take a call and respond to that and tell me why we should be repealing the three-strikes legislation.Chlöe Swarbrick: Because all evidence shows the longer people—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The member will cease interjecting and may take a call.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Madam Chair.So one part of the debate that was missing in terms of that—and it was never highlighted it was never talked about—is that actually you can implement or trigger the "manifestly unjust" part of the legislation. In the case of the other third-strike offender case that's exactly what happened.In that case the offender yes was charged under the three-strikes legislation. He indecently assaulted a female corrections officer in her workplace. I can't remember the exact words in the victim statement but it obviously left her deeply stressed. She lost a lot of confidence in the workplace and actually what happened was the judge triggered the "manifestly unjust" provision. So what that meant was that the offender yes was convicted under three strikes. It was a very clear message that we were sending as a Parliament and as a nation telling her that we take this very seriously that we take a sexual assault on her in the workplace very seriously. But the judge had an option and that was to trigger "manifestly unjust" which he did. So what it means is that that offender now doesn't just get a seven-year sentence as was portrayed in this House and was portrayed to the general public—Darroch Ball: Quite a wide-ranging debate is it?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Take a call Mr Ball. I welcome you to take a call and respond to this. Tell me where I'm going wrong on this. So "manifestly unjust" was triggered which means actually now that he's eligible for parole next year.Darroch Ball: I'm not arguing with you.Hon MARK MITCHELL: But we didn't—well what are you arguing about?Darroch Ball: It's quite a wide-ranging debate isn't it?Hon MARK MITCHELL: What's that?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is—Darroch Ball: Start talking about the appropriations.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! That is entirely up to me. There was a barrage of interjections about a particular point which the member has now addressed and I would ask him to come to the Estimates.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Madam Chair. I'll come back to the Estimates and the reason why I was using those examples is because I'm referring directly to the Estimates hearing where I asked the Minister about his reforms. The first reform that he tried to get through Cabinet was a repeal of the three strikes legislation—that was the first thing he tried to do. What happened? It got shot down. At the last minute a Labour justice Minister was thrown under the bus. He was publicly humiliated because the coalition partner withdrew their support at the 11th hour and he couldn't take his reform to Cabinet to get approval to get it through. [Darroch Ball shakes head] You can shake your head but that's exactly what happened.Darroch Ball: No it's not.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well I've read the Estimates transcript. Read the Estimates transcript and you'll see what the conversation was and you'll see that's exactly what he says. So then he had to go back to the Prime Minister and then they decided at the 11th hour "Oh we'll reprioritise it and we'll reprioritise the justice summit and we'll go up to the justice summit and we'll generate some ideas up there."The point that I want to make is this—and I see that Greg O'Connor is in the Chamber and I want to acknowledge him and acknowledge that I respect his service and his background. I know that he didn't come to this House to make New Zealand a less safe place so my expectations are—Hon Member: Do you believe this Mark?Hon MARK MITCHELL: —that he will look very very closely at the reforms—you can be as shocked as you want; I'm telling you now we will not be supporting reforms that will allow people out on the street that shouldn't be out on the street. They're in prison for a very good reason and that is public safety. If we can come up and if you can show that you've got some good reforms whereby we can continue a very strong rehabilitation programme but at the same time keep the public safe then we'll look at that—without a doubt we'll be interested in that. But right now the only thing that's been signalled to this House is diluting and weakening parole laws bail laws and sentencing laws. We will not accept that—we will not accept that on its own. Nothing else has been put up—nothing.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Can I bring the member back to the Estimates please?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Madam Chair I'd argue that I'm directly addressing the transcript of the Estimates hearing. This is exactly what I spoke about: the dilution of bail laws sentencing laws parole laws; the three strikes legislation; the plan that they actually have; the plan that's been brought to us so far which is non-existent—that's exactly what I'm referring to. That's exactly what I'm talking about at the moment Madam Chair so are you happy for me to continue with that? [Madam Chair nods] Thank you very much.So in the first nine months we have seen nothing put up at all by this Government other than a plan to repeal the three-strikes legislation. So I've clearly laid out the case that was put and I'd welcome now someone to take a call and address the issues that I've raised. Maybe the Green Party will do that right now. Thank you Madam Chair."