Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I just want to pick up on the comments of the Minister around disproportionate sentences and maybe I'm a bit slow; I don't know—the Minister on the other side is very quick to assent. She seems to be arguing that because some judges consider outcomes as a result of the legislation as being disproportionate sentences we should repeal it. And she gave the example of a person who in the normal course of events might have got a three-year sentence and ended up with a 10-year sentence because of this bill. The thing that I can't quite understand is: was that not the purpose of the legislation? The whole purpose of the three strikes legislation was to say that if you're on your second or your third strike rather than getting the heavily reduced normal sentence that you might get you will get the maximum sentence. So the whole purpose of the bill was to bring about disproportionate outcomes for third-strikers and second-strikers. That was the purpose of the bill. The whole purpose of the bill was to create disproportionate outcomes for people on the third strike. And then to turn around and say Oh dear this has led to disproportionate outcomes. Therefore we should repeal it" seems to be hard to understand from a point of view of logic. That is the purpose of the legislation. So I want to get a better understanding. We have the Supreme Court saying "Where things would be so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the nation"—or words to that effect—"things should be changed." And that is a point of view and the legislation of course has a provision that if the outcome is manifestly unjust then the courts can take that into consideration. But the mere argument that the three strikes legislation which Part 1 repeals in relation to the Sentencing Act has led to disproportionate outcomes seems to me to be a very odd argument given that that is the exact purpose of the legislation. The purpose of legislation quite often is to send a message. I'm reminded of one of the comments from one of the submitters on this bill and that was Sunny Kaushal the president of the Crime Prevention Group. His point was that this is not the time for Parliament to send a message. And the message that is sent by repealing this legislation is that less punishment is required for our very worst offenders. The message is quite clear from Parliament that the Government is passing by this bill: we are too tough on our worst repeat offenders and we need to reduce those sentences and make it easier for those worst repeat offenders. I suppose what's leaving people scratching their heads is that given the rise in violent crime given the doubling of gun crime in Auckland or trebling or quadrupling and the sense of lawlessness on our streets why would we be wanting to send that message now? And the quote from that submitter was that it showed a lack of respect for law-abiding New Zealanders who are struggling and concerned.So those are the two questions that I had: why is the Minister surprised that the legislation brought about disproportionate outcome when that was the intent of the legislation and why is that a reason for repealing it? Second what exactly is the message that the Minister is trying to send in the repeal of this bill and how does she think it's appropriate for the times?"