SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Tēnā koe. In response to my colleague across the House there's a couple of his comments I'll just respond to briefly. First in reference to the introductory remarks of my colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi who introduced this legislation the quote that my learned friend across the aisles raised is that this is bad legislation and that the legislation hasn't worked and he made numerous references as to why and how that statement is incorrect. During the select committee process the Ministry of Justice presented a brief of evidence—2018 it was referenced. And what we say and I'm not sure if the member had the opportunity to review this evidence himself but I am assured it was certainly provided. What we did see if we're looking for evidence that this legislation has worked is to the contrary: we saw a stark rise in sexual offending we saw a stark rise in—sorry I'm just trying to find a graph that I can easily provide to the House; I did have it but now I've lost it. Yes thank you. We saw a stark rise in serious assaults with a seven-year maximum penalty and in sexual assaults in particular. Moreover on this side of the House we have a fundamental respect for the three distinct branches of Government and the judiciary has a very important role to exercise their discretion and it is their discretion which is fundamental to the administration of justice. At each of the distinct levels of the court—from the District Court to the High Court to the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court—each court found that the three-strikes sentences when they were having to give effect to them had breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. On this side of the House we fundamentally believe in the administration of justice. We believe in the exercise of the judiciary. We have sound sentencing legislation and we've had this legislation in place for a lengthy period of time. And for a party on the other side that prides itself on being one that upholds law and order principles that are fundamental to the administration of justice in this system I am startled by the approach that they are taking with respect to some of the comments just made by my colleague. We believe in the independence of the judiciary to make sound decisions. The statements made by my friend would suggest that the judiciary cannot do its job effectively or appropriately or doesn't do it well.On this side of the House we don't agree with that. That is the nexus of the argument Mr Goldsmith that you are advancing. What we have found is that there has been a significant disproportionate impact on otherwise marginalised groups in our communities. In one instance I read a judgment that found that but for this legislation in place I think the gentleman received a maximum penalty of 10 years in accordance with the legislation but the appropriate sentence for the offending that he had committed would have been in the vicinity of three years. So I take it back to the comments that my colleague from across the House made in reference to the Hon Kris Faafoi's statements that this legislation hadn't worked. It hasn't worked in the sense that we're sowing trends of violent crime trending downwards which was of course one of the intentions of the previous Government's approach that would be an indicia of success. It hasn't worked in terms of upholding some of our fundamental constitutional principles. We've seen the judiciary at every level refute and make stark comments about the implications on the New Zealand Bill of Rights' impacts. So with all due respect to the remarks made and having regard to the evidence that was presented in the select committee process I do not think that I can find myself in alignment with the views put forward—and that's what they were: they were views not fact—of my friend across the House. Debate interrupted.