Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you for that lengthy and detailed contribution from the Government! So this is an interesting bill. And one thing that strikes me is I often wonder why this Government keeps implementing legislation that has absolutely no evidence to back it. I mean it's a sensible question. You can see that we might not see eye to eye on a lot of heartfelt issues but you would think if you're going to do some decent analysis check some facts and figures to actually go through and look at history as to what works and what doesn't work why is it that particularly in the space of law and order this Government continues to implement policy and decisions that have zero evidence to back them up? It's a legitimate question and I think the answer is that they don't really care about the outcome. They want something that looks good that ticks the box of getting a vote that keeps people happy here and now and makes it sound OK but they have zero vested interest in the long-term benefits to New Zealand. And that's what really bothers me.This legislation first came to New Zealand way back in 2010. It was a coalition agreement between ACT and National when Rodney Hide was a member of the ACT Party. At that point in time I was working within New Zealand Police and what happened at that point was we were tasked to try and figure out how to implement this new system across three different computer systems in the justice sector. And so there was no consideration the first time this came in as to how it would be implemented. There was someone—namely me—who sat and had to watch three databases for when we got a striker. And when we got a striker who was eligible we had to call up the courtroom and tell the person who was prosecuting in the courtroom that they had to call out to the judge and notify them that there was a strike. If that didn't happen that person got away without a strike. We had to draw straws on a weekly basis over who fronted up and told Judith Collins how many strikes had got away that week and how many strikes had got away that month.So this goes to my point that there was no interest in how this was actually going to be implemented and monitored. There was no investment in the systems of how it was actually going to work because all that was wanted to be achieved—the only thing that was to be achieved—was that it looked good. And it looked good and it ticked the box and it did and it is no different now.This is something that we saw during scrutiny week which was very interesting. In scrutiny week when Nicole McKee as the Associate Minister of Justice fronted up to the Justice Committee at scrutiny week and Nicole McKee openly stated that the first time three strikes was introduced it didn't work. We had ACT on record in scrutiny week stating that the first bill didn't work because she had received advice from the Ministry of Justice that demonstrated the first time—Hon Nicole McKee: So why are you talking about it we're on to the second version now. Time to move on Ginny. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We've got it on record Nicole; it's there you said it had problems and it didn't work properly at all. So the reason why they had to peddle it back was because the advice came through from the Ministry of Justice officials that it had zero deterrent effect on criminal offending. It had no impact on reducing the number of victims and it had no impact on actually making a meaningful difference in our justice system. And that's what the advice is. So the bill we have now is a reheated version. It's actually slightly less worse than the first one they fronted up in 2010. But it goes to the point that there's no new ideas in the bucket. They're just reheating old failed stuff that still doesn't work and rebranding it in some kind of sad attempt to look tough and look cool and I'm afraid that it just doesn't work and it's sad to see this implemented once again.I am pleased to see that they've made some changes including the manifestly unjust provision which will go some way to mitigating the damage that this will do. It shows no faith in our judiciary. It shows no faith in our justice system and it will have zero impact on reducing victims even though those members opposite will continue to sing its praises and say it will fix everything. Only time will tell. As we've seen in the past bill this will do nothing to reduce victims. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of money.