Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I am going to come back to you and I am going to put my questions to you again very briefly and I am going to ask you to stand in this Chamber and address them because they were your four opening comments in relation to this bill. I'm going to start from the back. First in relation to victims let me explain very clearly I don't know whether you've read the submissions made by victim advocates groups to the Justice Committee but they were very very clear about the fact that they felt strongly that the three strikes legislation was working it was designed in favour of victims and it should remain on our statute book.Victims Minister like I said on the whole want to avoid our justice system and coming into the court. Some don't some want their day in court they want to be able to have their say. But certainly in my experience those that have been the victims of serious family violence sexual violence find the court process deeply stressful and re-traumatising for them. I don't know whether the Minister fully understands that the three strikes legislation provided certainty for those victims. They knew what was going to happen to the offender inside our criminal justice system. They knew that they could have some peace of mind and feel safe in their homes knowing that they weren't going to be called back early to a parole hearing or having to revisit a victim impact statement. That is the real impact and effect on victims.The Minister said in her opening statement that one of the reasons why they're repealing this is because they want to be able to protect an offender's right to be able to plea bargain. Effectively that's what it is. They want the defendant to be able to plea bargain. I think that's a perverse position to take for any Government to bring a bill to this Chamber to repeal because they're trying to protect the rights of a defendant to be able to plea bargain. What I'd like the Minister to do is stand in this Chamber because when the Hon Peeni Henare made that comment in this Chamber I was shocked. I went away and I did some research and I tried to find some evidence to show that that was actually the case and whether there'd been any negative perverse or bad outcomes in relation to victims because of that change. I could find nothing Minister.So I'd like the Minister to stand and actually give us some clear evidence in terms of what she's basing those comments on because the only evidence that we heard was from defence lawyers that came in front of the committee and when questioned by the committee they couldn't give any examples either. It was just some sort of idea that was out there in the ether. I thought that when we passed law as lawmakers when we take this type of legislation seriously that it should be actually backed up with some evidence. It should be actually backed up with some examples. The only evidence clear evidence that I've heard given in the Chamber today is by Nicole McKee who stood up and actually referred to the justice report saying that even though it might be minor there's actually evidence there that it could be a deterrent. By the way she made a very salient point: you actually need time to see what's going to happen.Another point that I want to raise is incarceration. And the example was used: someone that might have committed a minor offence has been caught by three strikes and gets an 11-year sentence. By the way let me be clear: offenders that have been caught by three strikes have got on average about 72 convictions. OK? So let's just look at that for a second. If we've got an offender that is a recidivist offender with multiple convictions and actually they're going into prison and they got a prison term of 11 years—if we extrapolate that out just think about the amount of offences that haven't been committed. Think about the amount of victims that haven't been created in that time. And here's a novel idea for us all to remember: part of the reason why we have prisons and we have our corrections facilities—they do an outstanding job although they're under enormous pressure at the moment—is fundamentally to keep communities safe. We would all in this House as lawmakers love to live in the utopia where we don't need prisons where we don't need to incarcerate people. But do you know what? There's people in our community and this has happened through the generations as long as man has walked on this earth—there's bad people that do bad things. We need them to actually protect the community.So I'd like the Minister to stand and answer my questions. I want her to answer my question and explain to us why she has used the rationale as laid out for us in this Chamber that because serious violent crime and serious crime in this country is on the rise they're having to come to this House and repeal the three strikes legislation because that hasn't been a deterrent. I'd like her to stand and give us the evidence for that. I'd like to see what advice she's had. I'd like her to refer to the advice that she's had from her officials. I'd like her to give us the evidence of how she has arrived at that position—it's one of her four key planks that this legislation is being repealed upon. And I would like her to stand and I would like her to give us examples and evidence of the proposition that she has put forward another one of her key planks for the repeal of this legislation in terms of how three strikes legislation is going to have a perverse outcome because it removes the right of a defendant to be able to plea bargain. I'd like to see the evidence; I'd like to see the advice that she's received to actually back that up. Thank you Mr Chair.