Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a call on this bill as an ex-prosecutor and as someone who's spent most of my life advocating for victims within the criminal justice system and the family system. And I do actually see the appeal of this bill. It is easy when faced with horrible things to want to—Hon Member: Lock people up.Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Lock people up. It is very very easy to think let's throw away the key. It is very very easy to think An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." It is very very easy to think "Let's get vindictive let's do something knee-jerk let's do something hard because it makes us feel good." Do you know how long it makes us feel good? About 30 seconds because the problem is it doesn't work. It would be fine if this actually effected some change.This is where I have real issue with the previous speaker Nicole McKee and also with the previous speakers last night. I do want to talk about this because I'm afraid there's been a misreading of the data. The suggestion that this law makes a difference were it true—for me—that would be the bottom line. If it actually effects change let's go with it. The problem is it doesn't. Last night Mr Mitchell was quoting from the evidence brief of 2018 which I have here with me and I believe these are some of the figures that my colleague Ms McKee was also quoting. The nice thing about this is Mr Mitchell got as far as page 3 and at the top of page 3 he read out some stats about the different figures for who was at different levels of the stage one or stage two or stage three. And he said "There it is. There's the proof" I'm paraphrasing here "There's the proof. Explain to me how this isn't working." If Mr Mitchell or my other colleagues across the House had read down another paragraph they would have been able to spot this little gem: "Looking simply at changes in the rate of these three categories of offences since the New Zealand three strikes law came into effect we can see few changes that are easily attributable to the new law." If they'd read on just a couple more paragraphs—I know there's big words there I know it's difficult to deal with all this data but if they'd read on just a few more paragraphs they would have come to this little gem: "Convictions have proven to be"—wait for it—"stable." Even increasing since the law was enacted we're talking since 2010—that was on you guys. Based on the data alone there is no distinct indication that the three strikes legislation is deterring individuals from committing qualifying offences.Now let me break that down for my colleagues across the House. The translation out of academic speak is "meh". Got that? Or in other words "It's a waste of time." It's not just a waste of time though; it's actually causing problems. It is causing us money keeping prisoners in. It is preventing us putting them through rehabilitation because until you're eligible for parole you can't get rehabilitation. And it's increasing court time because as every good defence lawyer knows if the sentence is high the defendant is likely to contest it. At the same time it is indiscriminate. It prevents judges from taking into account mental illness. It prevents them from correctly weighing simple things like where your strike three is; for example—and these are real examples—a pinch on the bum. Excuse my language Madam Speaker or possibly a kiss. These things do not merit the full weight of the sentence. Judges at the same time can still deal with the worst offenders just as they always have. I dislike knee-jerk reactions. I dislike simple vindictive sugar hits. I came here to make a real difference and for that reason I commend this bill to the House."