Bridges Simon; Salesa JennyHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): National opposes this repeal bill the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. And I want to say to the member opposite the Hon Kris Faafoi: at a time of record violence at a time of record gun crime under the Labour Party at a time when gangs are creating record havoc and misery around this country—more victimisation than we've ever seen in this country—is it really the time to go soft on crime? I doubt it. Now's not the time for Labour to go soft on crime Kris Faafoi. You see if everything was hunky-dory here and we had a situation where crime was going down our prisons had empty rooms because the Government was doing such a good job in this area well that possibly would be an argument to say You know what no we don't actually need to have this sort of law to deter. There's less violence there's less gun crime there's less gangs and so on." but that's not the case. We've got certainly decade-high violent crime in this country and now's not the time for Labour to go soft on crime.The second point I want to make is that that party over there on COVID and everything else—although they haven't actually followed it—tries to pretend they're science-based they're evidence-based they do everything according to what the so-called experts say yet in this case this law the three-strikes law on the books on the evidence works. It makes the public safer and it deters violence and gun crime. And before I get into what the New Zealand evidence says it's right to ask that party to back up its position on this bill—that is the Labour Party in Government's position on this bill. And to go soft on crime like they have what reviews what evaluations what evidence did Labour collect or commission in the preparation of this bill? Can you hear the cicadas chirping? I can. They commissioned none. They collected none. They did not get a single report a single piece of commissioned evidence from a university or anywhere else from New Zealand on the necessity for this law and how it was working. And by the way while I'm mentioning that how many members of the public let alone victims of crime and organisations that work for victims did this Government ask or consult in putting this bill together? None.You see the only study I think was at the backend of the National Government done by the Ministry of Justice. It shows quite clearly yep there was no change in offending levels from people before the bill through to first strikes once the law was in place; there wasn't a change in the level of offending. But when it came to second strikes at the time of the commission of this report—there weren't any third strike offenders I don't think at that time—actually the strike offenders and their offences decreased—they decreased. And that's because—it's not rocket science—the more individuals are warned the more they said to themselves I would think "This isn't smart. I don't want to keep offending." and they as individuals were deterred resulting in their cases in fewer victims of crime. The bill on the only report commissioned by any Government the Ministry of Justice deterred criminals. And more fundamentally than that what we also know is that—and wait for it—there is an average of 74 previous convictions per strike offender. I just want the members of the public back home to hear that: 74 convictions is what the average three-strikes offender has right? We're not talking tiddlywinks here. We're not talking theft of a Mars bar as some on the other side may have you say. With that going on when they're in prison for a strike second or third the public is safer for longer there are fewer victims in our communities throughout New Zealand. That legislation serves as both general and specific deterrence of criminals.What's the best that Labour can say about this law? Well I think it's in the regulatory impact statement. They say about the three-strikes law that it results in "excessive and disproportionate punishment by preventing sentencing judges from taking the circumstances of the offenders and offending into account." And I want to go through that. Firstly "excessive and disproportionate" they say. Rubbish. They may want to as they have in so many of the laws that have come through the justice department here in New Zealand import US-style culture wars to this country but it is a load of rubbish. There is not a single case that they can point to that any academic can point to that anyone in the judiciary can point to where someone's been sentenced for theft of a piece of pizza for 50 years in jail or the like. It simply hasn't happened in this country.And the cases that they refer to and that are in the regulatory impact statement and the various other documents that the Labour Party refers to I just urge any reasonable New Zealander who's worried about this to go and check out—you'll find it I think online—the summary of facts of those cases. They were serious offences by serious offenders with long histories. And yes the sentences under the three strikes regime were firm but they were not excessive or disproportionate in my view and I say actually in reasonable New Zealanders' views in the slightest.The second bit—that "excessive and disproportionate punishment by preventing sentencing judges from taking the circumstances of the offenders and offending into account." is to me the real reason the Labour Party's against this. You see this is about the judiciary and a judiciary-pleasing Government that wants judges to decide not this Parliament. This is actually a constitutional argument. I'm not going to deliver a treatise on that here but there is a growing trend from our judiciary in New Zealand seeking to push back against Parliament and assert interpretations that aren't conventional on parliamentary statutes and powers for themselves that they have never had. In relation to sentencing of criminal justice courts increasingly want to assert that a complete judicial discretion belongs and exists for them. Well they are wrong. There is no such principle. Parliament and its sovereignty determines sentencing policy as well as a raft of other things not the judiciary.There's other criticisms that the other side makes in the various documents on this bill. Three strikes they say disproportionately affects Māori. Well that ignores that the victims of the three-strikes offending are also disproportionately Māori. And on this side of the House we stand up for Māori victims of crime and victims of crime generally over offenders every single day of the week. And I say to the members on the other side who are Māori "You know what your brothers your sisters your whānau are victims and this law would have done something about that." This law that shouldn't be repealed did something about that not the soft-on-crime approach from the Labour Party.The final thing they say is "Well this bill it offends against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act." as if the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is some sort of religion we have to follow with the Pope being "Saint Geoffrey Palmer II". "It's a religion. We have to follow it. We just can't ever do anything. Parliament can never pass a law if there's a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue in it." Here's the problem with that: the Labour Party is exceptionally venal and acts exceptionally conveniently when it comes to that argument because right now at the Justice Committee we've got a hate speech law we've got a conversion practices law we've got several other laws that Kris Faafoi's come to this House on and spoken on that grossly offend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It's all too convenient to come down here and give us that sort of conversation. Now's not the time for Labour to go soft on crime. Three strikes has worked for individuals in generally deterring them and keeping New Zealanders safer. Unlike Labour we back Parliament not judicial activism that marches onwards from our courts. And here we don't want more violence and more gun crime. We're on the side of communities around New Zealand not offenders. We oppose this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up. The question is that the motion be agreed to."