Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a five-minute call. I stand not as a member having presided on the Justice Committee but certainly as a member of the National Party that's listened to the debate in the House. It's a given that this three-strikes bill is not going to be struck out. It has the numbers from the Labour Government. It's going to pass into law. The issue is for New Zealanders at this present time in the climate that we have not only is there a cost of living crisis we have a cost of crime crisis in our country and timing is critical. Is this really the time that the Government should be striking hot on this bill to strike out and to repeal the three-strikes legislation Act?I put it to the House and I put to New Zealand—it's not. If anything at best rather than repealing this law there should have been an amendment to the law. How many shootings have we had in the last couple of days? How many shootings have we had in the last week? What is this Government doing to be staunch and firm and fair on that? I've tired of hearing the debate around soft and tough on crime. My stance is that we need to be smart on crime—not complicit not complacent. I put it to the House that the repealing of this legislation at this time where we have a crisis of crime in our country and our country is struggling with the cost of living—why is the Government repealing this law?I sat and I've listened to the debate last week and I have to say that I was perplexed. There were members on the Government benches—members who are in leadership positions—who behind the camera were mocking and belittling the substance of a debate. And that debate was about really should this bill be repealed at this time when we have a crisis of crime in our country? I was also perplexed that it's all very well to have this presentation in front of the cameras and make a grand stand on things when behind the cameras—these are different situations and scenarios playing out.I was also perplexed to hear members from the Government benches saying that there was no sense of discretion that the judges had. I'm going to just remind people what the law says. The law specifically states that when it comes to the three strikes there is discretion. That discretion is where the court may deem the imposition of a first a second and a third strike to be manifestly unjust in terms of a mandatory sentence being imposed. So let's correct the record on that.Also in terms of qualifying offences—that's under the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010—there are 40 qualifying offences and they are the most serious criminal activity. So let's be clear on this: we've got this gun spree gun shooting-up that's going around the country and spree on crime. Five of those 40 qualifying offences are specifically firearms-related offences. What message is being sent to those offenders who are on a rampage with their weapons with their firearms going around shooting up around the country? This three-strikes legislation repeal is completely striking out a deterrent force and approach by the courts and the law to be firm not complacent and not complicit.I'm not reading notes as the previous speaker did. I've got a number of notes that I have to refer here—none of which I can see because I need a new prescription with my lenses. But in saying that—not having been on the Justice Committee—the National Party is opposing the repeal of this on the basis that to do so at this time is not the right time to do so. The evidence from the Ministry of Justice is saying that There's no substantial international or New Zealand evidence on the effect of three strikes laws on crime. The existing evidence is mixed and more robust research is needed to understand the true effects of these laws." On that basis the National Party opposes this repeal bill."