Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. I've been interested in the conversation. I think that many valid and valuable points have been raised on this side of the Chamber and to the extent that the Minister has engaged with them I thank her for it.I know that she shares with me an interest in constitutional matters and that she's got something of a background in public law so I hope that she will engage on some points around the constitutional issues that are raised the relationship between the judiciary Parliament and the executive. These are issues that have been raised in New Zealand courts specifically on the legislation effectively leading to its repeal or at least being used by the Government as a justification for movement in this space. I think some of the significant issues are policy areas in essence including as related to Part 1 the heart of the bill which is the repeal of that provision in the Sentencing Act.So first point then translates to a question for the Minister: what is her view on the necessity as the Government MPs might have it that an Act or a measure be repealed on the say so of judges with those judges having determined that the three-strikes law as it's commonly known represents inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? The first point that I'd like the Minister to address is for her to provide some assurance to us at that high level that Parliament remains sovereign lawmaker in this country and that she can justify at least in her own mind and in the collective mind of the Government the measures they are taking and that they are not merely saying that it's because some judges in this land have a view on essentially a policy matter. Of course it's been dressed up in the language of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and creativity—I choose my euphemisms carefully—has been applied in that Parliament couldn't possibly have intended a disproportionate sentencing regime because that would be contrary to some provisions within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Well of course Parliament did intend that for better or worse. It's the right of this Parliament to make decisions that are ostensibly inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is the role of this the primary law-making institution in this country. So that's the first question—just to get some comfort from the Minister that at least she understands and acknowledges the respective roles of those branches of government and which one it is that ultimately has the ability to speak to the other one in that regard. That's not to say of course that we should be unaware or unconcerned with the courts' views on these matters. Indeed the next item on the Order Paper Madam Chair as you'll know is a discussion about declarations of inconsistency and how Parliament responds to that. So I don't want to get too far into that. But Part 1 of this bill is very clearly concerned with a policy matter on which the courts have been speaking.The second issue is whether she actually agrees—let's say for a moment that the courts have that ability and they do to comment on these matters. Is it correct that it's a disproportionate response in policy terms for the right not to be subjected to disproportionate treatment? Is that not outweighed by the serious policy objective in terms of our most serious offenders in this country those causing the most degree of victimhood on multiple occasions? And of course the iteration of offending is at the heart of the policy. Is that not sufficient to outweigh that starting point which is the right in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the first place?Finally on that—and it's a related point but it goes into another place which goes to how the community view these things—if the judges' expectations and desires in relation to sentencing policy differ greatly from those of the New Zealand public which should prevail? I'm not saying that should have some sort of system whereby there's a popular and populist approach to sentencing and that it should be the guiding light but I would strike a note of caution for everyone who has engaged with constituents who are concerned about violent crime over a long period—and I don't mean to say necessarily that it's higher over the last five years; that might be the case but it's irrelevant for current purposes—that if the community loses faith in the institutions such as the judicial system if it takes into its own hands vigilante actions or disrespects these democratic institutions that we have then we will all be the poorer for it including in the way that we respond to violent crime. So the Minister's engagement on that point would be very welcome indeed.