SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you. I just want to briefly respond with respect to some of the disproportionate sentencing outcomes that have been subject of inquiry in the senior courts. I'm sure these cases have been provided and discussed at the select committee stage but I'm happy to just touch on a couple that I think highlight why the move from the discretion for the judiciary to be able to apply ordinary sentencing principles and therefore put them in the position where they're consistently breaching section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is not good law for all New Zealanders.I refer to a case Queen v Love in 2020. This offence here concerned a gentleman who had severe mental health issues. He was an out-patient at a mental health hospital who had been to the hospital that day. He was in a state of crisis of some sort smashed a door at the hospital where he was an out-patient and he took $380 from a local cafe. That of course is unacceptable behaviour and the sentencing regime had an ordinary judiciary approach to this through the sentencing regime that they would ordinarily apply. The sentence indication was that that would result in a penalty of 18 months. The sentence imposed in that case was 10 years—10 years for a man who was mentally ill that the system knew suffered from significant mental health issues. He would and is serving a 10-year sentence for a crime which the courts have indicated should carry a penalty of 18 months.So that's one case of many. We saw the deep inquisition by the Supreme Court in cases like Queen v Fitzgerald that highlighted that you have a majority of the court in that case saying that the right under section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was not one that was subject to a reasonable limitation under section 5 of that Act. And they spoke on multiple occasions and have through all levels of the courts about the disproportionate composition element that is passing through to victims. I don't know that that was the intention—and if it was the intention to incarcerate mentally ill patients for extremely lengthy prison sentences it's certainly not an intent that this side of the House would agree to.As to comity I found it almost comical the analysis offered by my friend on the other side of the Chamber as to his understanding of comity when it comes to separation of powers. To be clear of course Parliament retains the right to make laws. We have I would hope though a general moral obligation on us all as parliamentarians to make law that serves the intent of our laws that guide us primarily the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act those other critically constitutionally significant important laws that enable us to guide and make good law in this House that results in outcomes—whether those are deterrent effects whether that results in outcomes like reduced time going through the criminal justice process to get the appropriate sentencing outcomes that victims deserve whether that creates cost outcomes—and that we as taxpayers can be assured that those who are deserving of harsh sentences are receiving them and that those in the best place to be able to make that determination have the tools that they need. Of course I feel that's an obligation on all of us in order to ensure that we're looking deeply and critically at the laws that are being passed through this House and I reaffirm our party's position in 2009 and one that we've taken seriously again in this Parliament that three strikes law was bad law continues to be bad law and has proven to be bad law over now a decade's period of time.