Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I rise to stand against this Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill brought in by a Government that is out of touch soft on crime and tone-deaf to the realities of what people are experiencing on the doorsteps and on the streets and in our communities in terms of a rising crime situation. This Minister and this Government are out of touch when it comes to the reality of what's going on in our communities. One of the greatest shocks of my political time was becoming a new Minister back in 2014 and rocking up with my many priorities that I was going to do as Minister of Commerce and discovering that the officials looked at me and said Well of course you might want to do your 10 things but we can only do five bills at once and four of them are compulsory and if you want to do another one you've got to drop three others." The ultimate consequence of it is that a Minister learns very early on that they need to prioritise how they're going to use their ministry and the limited resources that they have to focus on what really matters. Then we look at this Government's priorities in justice and what is their priority? Their priority looking at all the situations that we see in justice like the rising crime the ram raids going on left right and centre people getting shot in their communities drive-by shootings everywhere an increase of 21 percent in violent crime and more than 40 percent in gang membership in this country—they look at all that and they conclude "What is our priority in justice? Well actually we think we're too tough on the most serious offenders." That's the conclusion that they've drawn—that we should focus on repealing the three-strikes legislation because overall we're too tough on the worst violent offenders in this country and our priority when it comes to justice is making life easier for them. Well how tone-deaf can you be? That's what this Government is when it comes to—they're hanging their heads in shame over there because they know particularly the many of them in slightly marginal seats that they won't be back in 18 months' time because they are not listening to what the community wants when it comes to law and order and that is that. Rather than what the Minister rather lamely referred to as a smarter approach they don't want to see a softer approach that they have seen from this Government. I heard again the Minister saying that the evidence was that this bill the three-strikes legislation that was introduced a decade ago has been "ineffectual". There is no such evidence. That was nonsense. He should really come back into the House and apologise for saying something which is completely unjustified. The Ministry of Justice brief on this bill was that "There is no substantial international or New Zealand evidence on the effect of three strikes laws on crime." There is no evidence—no evidence. "The existing evidence is"—I continue with the quotation—"mixed and more robust research is needed to understand the true effects of these laws." Well that doesn't strike me as a strong sound basis for repeal does it? It certainly doesn't justify all the nonsense that we've heard on the other side of the House saying "Oh these haven't worked. This bill hasn't worked; therefore we need to throw it out." There is no evidence—that's what the Ministry of Justice says.Well it's appalling that in the last 4½ years of being determined to remove it they haven't looked for any evidence. They haven't tried because they don't want to know they don't want to see and they don't want to understand what New Zealanders are seeing on their streets which is a rising tide of violence that needs to be dealt with effectively. Rather than a Government coming in and having all sorts of other priorities in the justice sector other than keeping New Zealanders safe they are not drawing the conclusion that this Government has drawn that on balance when you look at the whole justice sector our main problem is that we're too tough on the criminals. That is a bizarre conclusion to be drawing. So when we look at the victims of the crime—well we don't hear anything from them in this bill and in this focus. We heard from them in the select committee process. We heard from people like Sunny Kaushal coming in and talking about the terrible effect that repeat violent crime has had in the dairy sector—the people lying in bed at night at 3 o'clock wondering if their dairy or if their shop is going to be the one that is smashed over tonight or is it going to be tomorrow night. We hear of the families who have lost loved ones to violent crime incidents and from repeat offenders on many occasions. They are asking themselves "What about us? What about our family?"The main goal of three-strikes legislation is to remove the most dangerous offenders from circulation for longer. That is what keeps our community safe. We're not talking about large numbers of nice people. When we look at the figures they tell the story. There's only been after the 10 years or so that it has been introduced just under 13000 people on the first-strike offence—13000 people. You know maybe if it was totally ineffectual as the Minister claimed as a deterrent and as a piece of legislation we might have seen another 13000 people on the second strike but we don't. What we see is 640 people on the second strike across the country and then if it was totally ineffectual at that point maybe we would see 640 people on a third strike. But no we see 21 of New Zealand's worst offenders on a third strike. So all this focus of ministerial effort in the House and all the grandstanding by this Government for this legislation is over a piece of legislation that has managed to keep the 21 worst repeat serious offenders in this country in jail and out of circulation for longer.Hon Andrew Little: So why is there a rising tide of crime?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And then—the "Muppet Show" continues over there. We have some people pointing out some flaws in the way that the legislation has worked and there probably are some flaws in the way the legislation has worked. Now there are examples—very few examples—such as the lack of rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners who are not eligible for parole but that is something that could be reviewed or changed in the legislation. The obvious point would be to say "OK 10 years on there are a couple of kinks in the system. Let's deal with those." because the fundamental element of the bill is about keeping New Zealanders safe. Let's keep that and deal with a couple of the issues that have come up in the course of the inquiry that we've had. But that was not the approach that this Government has taken. What's happened is that they made a promise during the election campaign that they're going to throw it out because this was again the priority for Young Labour and whoever else was pushing the Labour Party's agenda—it might have been Mr Little. Who knows? He's moved on to much more effective areas in health where he's got that all under control after he made no progress in justice for a long time but there you go.But they promised to do this and regardless of whether it makes any sense they have spent the rest of the time dreaming up a justification for it where it doesn't exist and like I say when a Minister of the Crown stands up in this House and says "Oh the three-strikes laws were ineffectual." he is wrong. There is no evidence at all that he can point to to show that this legislation has been ineffectual. The only point I'd make is when we look out there for those of us who go outside and see what is going on in our communities who see the rise of violent crime in our communities who read every night over the last few weeks—every night—that another house has been shot at and it's only a matter of time before innocent people are going to be killed—only a matter of time. They see what's going on they see the ram raids they see the 11-year-olds stealing cars and smashing them into buildings and they look at the challenges that we face as a country—Hon Andrew Little: It really is working—yeah!Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh here we go. Here we have another argument from the great legal scholar Mr Little which is to say "We haven't got nirvana in this country. Therefore the three-strikes legislation hasn't worked. Therefore we should throw it out." Well I suppose that if we follow that logic we might as well just throw out the prisons entirely. It's clearly not working. Let's give it up and we won't try any more because it doesn't work. Well what a nonsense kind of argument it is that we're seeing from the Minister there. So the only point I'd make is this Government is tone-deaf when it comes to what is going on in our community and if it really thinks that the big issue in justice right here right now is that we're too tough on the worst criminals then they should go home and find something better to do. Mr Speaker thank you very much. We oppose this bill and we will continue to oppose it."