McKee Nicole; Rurawhe AdrianNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party and oppose this Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. I'd like to start by noting that at a time when crime is really getting out of control Labour is showing New Zealand communities and families just how soft on crime they really are how out of touch with reality and the mood of our country when it comes to serious violent crime just how out of touch they are when they attempt to cut all the consequences of really bad behaviour out of the criminals and just how out of touch they are at a time when parents are putting their kids down to sleep at night in the front rooms of their homes and they're scared to do so.This Labour Government has repeatedly turned its back on the victims of heinous crimes and ACT will not turn their backs—either on the victims or on the criminals. We meant it back in 2010 when we implemented the three-strikes law with the National Government's backing and we still mean it now. ACT puts our communities first the people first and makes their safety paramount. How can we achieve thriving communities if the worst of the worst of New Zealand's criminals are slapped on the hand and given a bus ticket straight out of prison and back to be a neighbour near your family? We want thriving communities not scared ones. But this bill will mean that there are no dire consequences for really serious violent behaviour. The Labour Government along with the Greens truly believe this approach is best for our local communities.And what has the Government's approach shown us? Well the left side of town the Labour and Greens think it's more important to have a chat and a cuddle with these bad boys—and they are all bad boys there's no girls on the third strike—and then send them on their way hoping they don't commit any other serious violent crime. Even the Human Rights Commission in their submission to the Justice Committee did not mention victims once. And when I asked them why they got all uppity with me for doing so. There is no thought at all for the victims because if there was Labour would make sure that there are serious consequences to the serious crimes that are being committed. After all you don't get a strike for committing petty theft Golriz Ghahraman.Out of all of the charges that you could have laid against you there are only 40 qualifying offences for a strike—and they are regarded as being serious violent offences. The offender is not hit with a full sentence straight away they're given a warning—that's their first strike. They are released after serving the full sentence imposed on them in their second strike. And if they do get to the third strike it is the maximum penalty for that offence with no parole.Do not give me the excuse that they don't know or they don't understand—that's simply saying that they can't help but be serious violent criminals and our society should be accepting of it. Labour is telling our communities that it's OK to have harm wreaked upon them because the violent offender was misunderstood and we should all be understanding. Don't give me the reasoning that it's a racist act because Māori are disproportionately affected. That would occur because those people who identify as being Māori are the ones that are committing the crimes—these serious violent crimes.And this also tells me that the victims of these crimes are mostly also Māori. But we don't talk about victims in the Labour Government now do we? There are 21 people who are currently serving a third strike. And the Greens want these 21 people to have their sentences re-examined and possibly shortened. The Greens say because it's only 21 people it's not that many. That actually says that because there are only 21 perpetrators then there aren't that many victims—and so that's OK. Someone's mother daughter sister grandparent or other family member who is a victim of these 21 third-strikers or the 640 second strikes—they don't matter and the criminal getting a lesser sentence actually matters more. Well the ACT Party will not be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper.And let's put some data around three strikes shall we? The person with the least number of accumulated convictions has eight and six of them are for sexual assault. The person with the highest number of accumulated convictions has 156 of them. Of the 21 people serving a third strike they average 75 convictions each between them. These serious offences actually only make up 1 percent of the total convictions; that is three strikes are used on the worst of the worst criminals like the man who punched and kicked and hit his victim with a piece of wood for his first strike. Then he stalked and sexually assaulted a 17 year-old girl for his second strike. And his third strike came after he stabbed someone in the leg.Or what about the story of the aggravated robbery of a man dragged from his car before it was stolen giving that offender his first strike? The second strike came when he assaulted a person refusing to hand over his money and his phone. The third strike came when a person also the victim of aggravated assault had their head stomped on by this criminal. And because of three strikes this offender—who had by the way 105 convictions—got the maximum five years instead of 18 months. ACT says there is no excuse for repetitive violent crime and our communities should not have to tolerate it.To see if there is a deterrent effect the Act actually needs to be in place for at least 20 years. Offenders actually have to serve time get out commit another serious offence—not a petty offence—and be incarcerated again serving a full sentence before being released again. And because we are talking of serious offences this means that on the second strike the full sentence requirement is probably going to be for some lengthy period such as five years for the head stomper that I just told you about.Already the statistics are showing a minor deterrent effect. If 20 years were attributed to this regime ACT believes that three-strikes legislation would show its usefulness and the need to keep our society safe from violent recidivist offenders and it would be justified. ACT's decision to implement this law back in 2010 showed New Zealand we intend to be tough on crime. Twelve years on and we still have that intention.Three strikes has sent a strong signal about keeping New Zealanders safe from recidivist offending. The Labour Government however—they've sent a message that the offenders are more important than the victims and that society should sit back and let this sort of crime happen to them. And they wonder why police aren't getting reports of all the gun crime that's actually happening in South Auckland as an example—apathy they say. ACT says it's community knowledge that the police and the Government won't actually do anything about it so why should the community fear retribution for speaking out.Labour's stance on law and order and the commitment to tackling crime is like farting at thunder. Our communities should be thriving under a Government that puts them first. ACT's ideas and policies on law and order will never stop because we the representatives of the people have their interests at heart.The three-strikes regime should stay and the clear message should be sent to criminals that if you can't respect another's personal rights and freedoms if you want to continue to commit serious offences against others—not once not twice but three times—then you lose your freedom for the full sentence available so you stop wreaking havoc. Healthy thriving communities cannot exist with out-of-control violence in our society. ACT does not support the repeal of the three-strikes legislation and insists that our communities most certainly need three strikes to keep them safe. Thank you Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 7 June 2022. Tōfā soifua manuia le po.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5.02 p.m.