Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I join others in congratulating you on your elevation to the current role that you have. I was relieved to see that no one objected to your appointment including yourself. But we'll see; the night is yet young! Obviously an incredibly serious topic. It's being treated seriously across the House as is right. Obviously differences of opinion on a number of different points including its most basic level as to whether parties support the repeal or not. As others of the National Party have made clear—and our colleagues in the ACT Party likewise—we don't support the repeal. We do indeed support the three-strikes regime or at least a three-strikes regime. I think it would be fair to say that to the extent that there are any anomalies in the regime as to which are qualifying offences then a reasonable conversation could be had. But for now we're engaged with the discussion of that which is in front of us which is of course the holus-bolus repeal of what's often referred to as the three-strikes regime being of course an aspect of the sentencing arrangements in this country. In my time I wanted to focus mostly or at least initially on the constitutional aspects. Others have made mention of these but I think it's important to ensure that we all clearly understand—and for what it's worth place on the record—some thoughts about how the different branches have interacted in relation to first the passing of the law its application and indeed what we might broadly describe as the repeal process. Also I did want to discuss different aims of the criminal justice system. It seems to me that often in these debates there's a conflation of different but related aims of the criminal justice system. I think it's fair to those who are arguing in favour of the regime actually to understand the benefit that such a sentencing regime can have beyond the tired old discussion about whether certain types of offending are likely to have a deterrent effect or not. I did actually also—and in fact I'm determined that however I manage my time in relation to those other points—want to finish on a note of acknowledging victims of crime. I think if we are to take seriously our role as legislators but also as members of our communities whether they be geographical communities constituencies Māori or non-Māori—aka general—electorate or indeed constituencies in a more general sense in that we represent people of New Zealand. In any case we should in this House always be mindful of those who are affected by the laws that we pass. Of course in the criminal law the parties to a matter before the courts are the accused and the State. The victim roughly speaking—and I'm using shorthand here—isn't actually a party to the proceedings isn't actually formally involved. Almost entirely that's the case and that seems to me to heighten our responsibility in this House to speak for victims and the things that are important to them in creating an architecture of criminal justice. First then the constitutional aspects as I promised. It goes without saying that there are circumstances in which judges can make law—in the case of civil wrongs aka torts also in situations where statute law is unclear or there are gaps or interpretation is needed. It's reasonable—indeed conventional—that if there are inconsistencies between domestic law and international law where there is a lack of clarity about whether Parliament had intended such an inconsistency that the judges will give the bounce of the ball so to speak in favour of the interpretation that be consistent with the international obligations. However I think it's been pretty clear and generally acknowledged on both sides of the debate for and against three strikes that many of our courts—and I choose my words carefully—have decided to prefer an interpretation of the three-strikes legislation that seems at odds to most observers with the clear intention of Parliament at the time that it passed that statute. So as my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has noted the disproportionality—which is the objectionable element within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act according to those who would have three strikes repealed. As to proportionality actually that's a feature not a bug of that legislation. The distorting effect as those across the House have described it is intended by Parliament because the evidence is clear that those who commit some crimes—sadly there's a large recidivist element and three strikes is actually poorly named to the extent that oftentimes there are many dozens of offences. Indeed on average that's the case—that many dozens of offences have been racked up by offenders who are facing what is formally their third strike in the sense of being qualifying offences. There's much damage that is done to communities when any kind of offending takes place and so if we're going to talk in this House about distorting effects then we should acknowledge the hugely distorting effects on communities victims and their families of violent crime. There's a sense in which laws are passed not only to have specific effects that are very measurable and tangible but also in the sense that they send a signal to the community about what its representatives regard as reasonable and acceptable in a civilised society. To the extent that the Parliament in passing laws that will soften the official position on offending—the point I'm trying to make is that while one would never wish to condone vigilante action or self-defence beyond the reasonable and the proportionate the reality is that many people in our communities feel under threat by violent offending. They're not confident that they will have the protection that the courts and the prisons and the justice system generally should afford it. That's the fault of Parliament rather than the courts and the prisons I hasten to add. So it's important that we don't undermine that sense of justice in that general sense as well as the real feeling of protection and safety that citizens of this country—by which I include obviously those who are not technically citizens—should derive from the laws of the land. The sense of justice—which is obviously a pretty nebulous concept—I think needs to be understood alongside the aims of deterrence and we've talked about that. But also prevention and it's often missed by those opposed to the three-strikes regime that there's an important preventative role; namely that those who are incarcerated having committed at least three very serious violent crimes will be prevented from offending in the community during that time that they are behind bars and of course that's an opportunity for rehabilitation. I think there's common ground across the House that rehabilitation is one of the very worthy aims of our criminal justice system and it is not incompatible it is not mutually exclusive it is not inconsistent with the idea of the three-strikes regime because we allow people the opportunity to you know gain education or generally mend their ways and a chance to reflect on that while they are quite literally a captive audience. The manifesto commitment point that others have made across the House—and then almost in the same breath criticised National and ACT for having brought in the regime on the basis of a manifesto commitment—yeah we can trade this kind of observation all day long but I don't think it does much good. I don't think it's much of an argument to say that it is enough that a party has promised to repeal a law. Of course that's unhelpful from a mandate point of view and I do acknowledge that. The Government now occupying the benches of course won the last election. That's why they're there and included in their manifesto was a commitment to repeal. So that so far as it goes is fair enough. But they also have a mandate to protect victims not only because that's what most reasonable people would say should be a role of the State and indeed this House but because that is the very rhetoric that they have been employing when it has been convenient to them in relation to other matters of criminal justice. So I just appeal to the House to hold Government members to account when they say perhaps glibly that it's sufficient justification to repeal a law that one had campaigned on it; noting that if they'd also campaigned on the aspect of victims' safety and victims' rights and a victim-centred justice system then they should honour that commitment as well no less than the other. So finally then but most importantly the victims of crime deserve not only that general sense of justice not only that physical real tangible notion of safety but also they need to have some sort of certainty where possible in relation to the conduct of their victims the movement of their victims the ability of their victims to threaten and revictimise them. So to the extent that there is certainty provided by the three-strikes regime—yes to the extent that that's inconsistent with judicial discretion that's unusual—but to the extent that provides some certainty for the victims about the amount of time from which they will be free from being terrorised by their previous tormentor then that's a good thing we say. We are on the side of the victims and we therefore for all the reasons we have said today oppose the repeal of the three-strikes legislation.