Williams Arena; McKelvie IanTHREE STRIKES LEGISLATION REPEAL BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 2 June.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Let me start by saying that if we want an effective justice system which treats everyone—and when I say everyone" I mean victims Māori offenders and families—fairly and with respect we need to be led by the evidence. A defence of the three-strikes law requires a sort of wilful disinterest in that evidence and how an effective sentencing regime should work disinterest in the harsh penalties for serious offences that are more effective than the three-strikes regime and a tolerance for outcomes which are not fair. I use that word "wilful disinterest" because three strikes has not reduced serious offending and victimisation. It does not do what its proponents wanted it to do and still say it does despite the evidence which is there to be seen.Three strikes gives us sentences which are plainly disproportionate and when it was enacted its proponents knew that would happen. It gives us sentences for some offenders that without the rule no judge or even reasonable person on the street would hand out. I see the repeal of three strikes as a sensible change which stands on its own in the wider debate where claims are drowning out the evidence about its efficacy because there is urgent need for consensus on justice issues and we need to agree to be guided by the evidence as we design our justice system. The Hon Paul Goldsmith made his contribution to this debate about the way that this repeal of three strikes would affect Labour MPs in marginal seats. That is a worrying insight into the way that justice policy can be used as a gimmick by politicians. It's worrying because we cannot make policy that looks tough in a tweet or in a TV soundbite but does not reduce crime. People deserve better than that. Programmes that are proven to reduce reoffending are worth more discussion in this House and they don't get the same kind of air time. It's things like independent reviews which have shown to be effective in stopping serious crime or the programmes like the alcohol and other drug treatment courts or the AODT courts. Those provide an evidence-based best practice treatment pathway that includes intensive monitoring case management drug testing and mentoring. And when we assess them at a population-wide level of all of the people who have gone through those programmes or an individual level about the way that the cycle of offending has impacted this particular person's life—on both of those measures programmes like that are shown to reduce offending to reduce crime overall and to therefore reduce harm on the communities who suffer the effects of that crime. I said a defence of three strikes would require wilful blindness about effective sentencing. So let's talk about how three strikes actually works. If you're sentenced for one of the three-strikes offences your first strike you get a warning only on top of a normal sentence for your actions. But if you're then sentenced for another three-strikes offence that's your second strike you get a final warning and you serve any jail time for your actions in full. That means you get a normal sentence but no option for parole. In the third strike sentence you must be given the maximum sentence for your offending and serve it in full. So whatever you've done you serve the maximum sentence no matter whether that is completely out of step with any other offenders serving that time for a very similar offence to your own or in very different circumstances to your own. So if you have a third strike irrespective of the nature of offending or anything else that creates this potentially absurd consequence of such a rigid rule and that was clear from day one when this legislation was passed. It's not something that we've learnt over time because sentencing should take into account things like deterrence whether offenders who are punished are less likely to re-offend and their punishment will deter others. Things like incapacitation—punishment can make it difficult or impossible for offenders to re-offend. That's an important part of the way that we sentence our offenders. It should take into account rehabilitation. If crime occurs because of a defect—say psychological moral or social—it can be corrected or prevented in future crime. And this is a particularly important part of the system which three strikes seems to actively act against because once you are on those three-strike offences you lose the ability to participate in those programmes which give you a better grounding outside of prison and which enable you to take on a fulfilling and hopeful life which inevitably leads to less offending from that person in the future. And the underlying logic of three-strikes legislation is that a failure in deterrence can be compensated by increases in incapacitation. There's no evidence that that is the case in the way that it's playing out here in New Zealand or in the United States where this legislation was borrowed from.I said that a defence of three strikes requires us to ignore the harsh penalties to serious offenders that are more effective. Other sentencing options in orders already exist in New Zealand law that provide judges the tools to impose the same restrictions as provided by the three-strikes law—in appropriate cases. We have preventative detention for repeat serious offenders public-protection and extended-supervision orders minimum periods of imprisonment and imposing maximum penalties up to life imprisonment. All of these things are tools in the tool kit which judges can use to punish serious offenders and to keep people safe. None of these things is improved by the three-strikes law. So this question about whether three strikes is actually more effective than these—well the answer is no. Three strikes is imported law from a failed US system. It was enacted in 2010 and modelled upon California's 1994 three-strikes law. That Californian law was draconian and it has been criticised since its enactment as the toughest law in America. It is not serving that population. It is not serving the ideology of that population where people are becoming more and more polarised around how we should treat offending given that on one side you have the need for rehabilitation and on one side you have the need for deterrence. Penalties like three strikes require us to be more and more polarised over time. They don't serve the people of America and they certainly don't serve us. So what is a New Zealand response to crime? Well it's one that reduces offending. The causes of crime need to be addressed: for example taking into account programmes like Te Pae Oranga panels like Hōkai Rangi—the initiatives which are shown to get people out of the system out of offending. Rangatahi and Pacific courts offer young people who have admitted to their offending or have charges that they are facing the choice of having their family group conference plans monitored in the right kind of setting. These things are early interventions in an offending cycle that make a difference to the way that people interact with the justice system and make a difference for the offender's victims in that they are empowered to participate in the system. Te Ao Mārama this is a programme that incorporates best practices developed in the District Courts' solution-focused specialist courts into mainstream criminal jurisdictions and that's to realise the shared vision for the court by improving access to justice as well as enhancing procedural and substantive fairness for all people who are affected by the business of the court. Those things are shown to make a difference. Those things are things that we can all agree around this House are things we should be having more conversations about and are things that we can come to the table and work on where the evidence is showing us that there are gains to be made in our justice system. It was difficult to sit through the earlier debate about three strikes because I know that everybody around this House does want a justice system that is more effective that protects people that protects victims of crime and that also reduces offending. I think the way that we do that is by opening ourselves up to having conversations around what works and is by avoiding the debates where we are pulled into polar opposites where one side or the other has to have a win on who's tougher. The answer here is that we have to look for those areas of shared interest in our justice system that allow us to take a more evidence-led approach to justice issues and I look forward to doing that with members all around this House. That's why I commend this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call Harete Hipango—five minutes."