SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The three-strikes law is unique in New Zealand because it prevents judges from properly considering the context of offending and the individual circumstances of offenders at sentencing. Given the distorting effect the three-strikes law has had on sentences strong evidence of its effectiveness would be needed to justify its ongoing existence. Instead there is little evidence the three-strikes law has worked as intended to deter or prevent any kind of serious crime. There is however clear evidence of the disproportionate impact the law has had including requiring judges to impose sentences so extremely excessive they breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Further we know that the three-strikes regime exacerbates the overrepresentation of Māori in the prison population. Māori are almost nine times more likely to receive a first strike than those of other ethnicities and over 18 times more likely to receive a second strike.The courts already have equivalent sentencing options available to protect the public from people who commit serious offences from limitations on parole eligibility through to the possibility of life imprisonment without parole. For these reasons it is the Government's view that discretion should be returned to the judiciary who are best placed to respond appropriately to serious and repeat offending.This bill was introduced on 17 November last year and was referred to the Justice Committee. Submissions were received from a wide range of submitters including those with firsthand experiences of the three-strikes regime. Submitters included victims of crime legal practitioners criminal justice advocacy groups and strike offenders themselves. I thank everyone who took the time to make a submission and as well the members of the committee for their careful consideration of this bill chaired by Ginny Andersen.In their report on the bill the committee noted that the clause preventing people from bringing a claim for compensation arising from any effects of the three-strikes law should be more clearly worded. This is to make sure that the interaction of the clause with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is clear. Even in the short amount of time since the bill was drafted and introduced the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have found sentences imposed under the regime to be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This Government does not and would never direct the judiciary in their consideration of how these breaches should be responded to and the amended clause makes this even clearer.There were no provisions in the bill as it was introduced that would provide however for a right to resentencing or other sentence adjustment measures for people who have been sentenced under the three-strikes law. As part of its examination of the bill the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Kristopher Faafoi asked the Justice Committee to consider whether sentences imposed under the law should be reviewed in some way. The committee has not recommended any provisions be included in the bill that would provide for the reconsideration of any sentences handed out under the three-strikes law.I'm sure that the Opposition has plenty of questions—and colleagues who have sat through the select committee process—so I'll be on hand to answer questions as they arise.