Henare PeeniTHREE STRIKES LEGISLATION REPEAL BILLSecond ReadingHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon PEENI HENARE: I move That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be now read a second time.The three-strikes law is unique in New Zealand because it prevents judges from fully considering the context of offending and the individual circumstances of offenders at sentencing. This law should be repealed because the courts already have equivalent sentencing options available to protect the public from people who commit serious offences—from limitations on parole eligibility through to the possibility of life imprisonment without parole.Given the distorting effect the three-strikes law has had on sentences strong evidence of its effectiveness would be needed to justify its ongoing existence. Instead there is little evidence the three-strikes law has worked as intended to deter or prevent any kind of serious crime. There is however clear evidence of the disproportionate impact the law has had including requiring judges to impose sentences so extremely excessive they breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Further we know the three-strikes regime exacerbates the overrepresentation of Māori in the prison population. Māori are almost nine times more likely to receive a first strike than those of European or other ethnicity and over 18 times more likely to receive a second strike.For these reasons it is the Government's view that the discretion should be returned to the judiciary who are best placed to respond appropriately to serious and repeat offending. When approaching the repeal one of the Government's main concerns has been minimising any effect of the repeal on victims. We engaged with the Chief Victims Advisor during the development of the repeal legislation to ensure that any potential impacts were understood early and could be effectively managed. As a result we developed the repeal legislation in a way that will not impact victims of strike offenders.I want to be clear that no victims of those currently imprisoned for a strike offence will be impacted by the repeal. We are not proposing to provide for resentencing or early parole eligibility for these offenders. We heard from victims' advocacy groups and from victims themselves that to do so would risk causing additional stress and hurt and that is not our intention with this bill. What this bill does is acknowledge that the three-strikes regime does not achieve the goals it set out to achieve and it does not keep victims safer. Victims' safety was never a goal of the three-strikes law when it was introduced. We know from international evidence that these kinds of laws can instead have a negative impact on victims. This is because they discourage offenders from pleading guilty meaning more victims have to go to court and go to trial than otherwise might.The excesses of the three-strikes law do not support victims and do not contribute to a criminal justice system that focuses on rehabilitating offenders. That is why this Government has committed to repealing this law. The Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill was introduced on 17 November last year and referred to the Justice Committee. That committee recommends by majority that it be passed with minor changes that I support in full. I thank all members of the select committee for their thorough consideration of this bill.Submissions were received from a wide range of submitters including those with first-hand experiences of the three-strikes regime. Submitters included legal practitioners victims of crime criminal justice advocacy groups and strike offenders themselves. Many of those who made submissions to the committee made some very important points and I thank everyone who took the time to make a submission.As part of its examination of the bill I asked the committee to consider whether sentences imposed under the three-strikes regime should be reviewed in some way. Taking into account feedback from submitters the Justice Committee has not recommended any provisions be included in the bill that would provide for the reconsideration of any sentences handed out under the three-strikes law. The committee has reported such measures would be complex to administer and would have significant effects on the victims of these offenders. I want to reiterate that the Government has accepted this position and will not be introducing any measures that would allow for the resentencing of strike offenders. I thank the committee for their careful consideration of this issue and for reflecting the concerns of submitters in their decision.In their report on the bill the committee noted that while compensation arising from the repeal of the three-strikes regime is precluded the relevant provision should be more clearly worded to avoid interference with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is a necessary clarification. As we have seen in the short amount of time since the bill was drafted and introduced the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have found sentences imposed under the regime to be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This Government does not and would never direct the judiciary in their consideration of how these breaches should be responded to and the amended clause makes this clearer.I do also want to acknowledge the submitters who did not support this bill. I understand there are those who feel strongly the three-strikes law should stay in effect and I appreciate those who have shared these views with myself and the committee.The courts stand firm on the evidence that this law has been ineffectual. It was the price the previous National Government had to pay for support from ACT which they did not agree with at the outset; they should have trusted that instinct.Finally I acknowledge that this bill is likely to inspire debate in the House and in public about the way we approach criminal justice and how we treat offenders. I want to reiterate that when the three-strikes law is repealed judges will have the same range of sentencing options at their disposal. New Zealand's most serious offenders will continue to receive appropriate sentences of imprisonment and will only be released on parole subject to the oversight of the parole board—when they no longer pose any undue risk to the public.I want to be clear this is about taking a smarter approach to criminal justice policy. It's about ensuring we have appropriate tools to hold offenders accountable and use evidence to build a justice system that ensures less crime less offending and fewer victims of crime who are better supported.I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.