Goldsmith Paul; Rurawhe AdrianHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. We're speaking on the repeal of the three-strikes legislation. This is the final reading. It will be passed by this Labour Government and come into effect after this debate. National opposes this bill and thinks—I mean let's see. What is the purpose of this bill? What is the Government trying to achieve by repealing the three-strikes legislation? The purpose is to reduce the prison sentences that our worst repeat criminals should face. Let me just repeat that so people can get their heads around it: the purpose of the legislation we are passing right now is to reduce the prison sentences—that is to make shorter the prison sentences—that our worst repeat criminals should face. I suppose New Zealanders sitting at home if they were in Auckland hearing the woo-woo-woo" the regular hum of sirens in the background hearing the helicopter flying overhead reading the stories of the significant increase in gun crime the 35-plus shootings in Auckland—not Chicago not Miami in the 1980s but Auckland in the last little while ago when they see the massive increase in gang membership recruiting faster than the police. They look at all that and they say "Well this Government thinks the priority right here right now is to reduce the prison sentences that our worst repeat offenders should face." We think that's nuts. We think the priority is wrong and it shows that this is a Government that is wholly out of touch when it comes to justice and law and order in this community. We oppose this repeal and we will bring back some sort of legislation to replace it if the people of New Zealand bring us back to Government next year because our focus is on the victims of crime. We want to reduce the number of victims of crime. We want to see fewer New Zealand families torn asunder by violent crime by gun crime by the sorts of things that make New Zealanders feel unsafe in their homes. Let's just remind people what the three-strikes legislation did. It was introduced 10 years ago and what it means is that for a list of serious crimes: murder rape violent assault leading to grievous bodily harm serious crimes—if an offender is convicted of that crime and they get a first strike they are on notice that if once they come out of prison they do it again and they repeat they have a warning that they could get a second strike and if they get a third strike the result is that they have to get the full sentence and serve the full sentence of their prison sentence for the crime that they are convicted of. That means that rather than having a heavily reduced sentence—we had an example of a prisoner that had been convicted of a serious crime that the judges thought might normally get two or three years but the crime itself under the third strike meant that they were spending maybe 10 years in prison or even 11 years. The purpose of it was to keep those serious repeat offenders out of circulation for longer to keep the community safe. That was the purpose of the three-strikes legislation. This bill by the Labour Government is to repeal that and as I say to reduce the prison sentences that our worst repeat criminals should face. One of the arguments that they've put forward—none of them very convincingly. The first argument put forward by Kris Faafoi the Minister of Justice when he introduced it was that it's bad legislation and we know that it hasn't worked. He then proceeded to present no evidence whatsoever that the bill hadn't worked. Then we of course finally got the official advice from the Ministry of Justice Police and Corrections which was "There is no substantial international or New Zealand evidence on the effect of three-strikes law on crime."—so no evidence. We just heard the Minister right now right here right now talk about evidence-based decision-making in the justice sector. There is no evidence on this bill but they're repealing it anyway. Secondly she's talked about the distorting effect of this Act that it leads to disproportionate sentences. Well hold the phone people. That is the exact point of the legislation. It is like complaining that the legislation does what it says it's going to do which is to say that if you're on your third strike you have to stay in prison longer than you would ordinarily if you'd done the crime the first time around. That is the purpose of the legislation and to say that it has a distortionary effect is nonsense—of course it does. That's what we were trying to do. That is what Parliament said when it passed the law it wanted.Then she referred to the judiciary being best placed to make decisions about the length of sentences. Well I'm afraid in the system that works at the moment Parliament has the right to set parameters for sentencing. That's what we did with this legislation and if there's a problem with it then it's for Parliament to turn around and say that it is disproportionate in its outcome—well that is the very point of it. Then the next argument is that perhaps it failed to protect victims. This was an argument that the Minister raised in the committee stage. She said "Well since this bill has been introduced 10 years ago violent crime has increased. Therefore it hasn't worked. It hasn't protected victims of crime." which was the weakest argument I've ever heard a Minister of Justice come up with. It probably didn't occur to her that there might be one or two other factors involved in the increase in violent crime in the last few years. I could suggest one or two perhaps the most obvious one being this Government's soft-on-crime approach and the messages that it has sent the excuses that it's come up with for violent crime and the fact that it hasn't done anything successful in countering it and keeping the community safe.Then the final argument that the Minister came up with having delivered all of those ones which are very weak and ineffectual was to say "Well it was a promise. The Labour Government made this promise and we intend to keep it." I just wish that they'd kept their promise to fix the housing crisis and to deal with mental health effectively and to do a whole heap of other things which they have failed to do manifestly over the last 4½ years but this one they can keep because even they are clever enough to pass a repeal bill. That doesn't exactly involve great skill but they've managed to do it. So what does it mean? It means that our worst repeat offenders will be out of prison earlier and will be able to create more victims. I refer to the commentary of Nick Tuitasi one of the submitters on this bill a former policeman from Northland where he talked about the third strike. People just remember by the way that currently after 10 years there have been 13000 people who had been delivered their first strike. If it had no effect it's surprising that only 640 have had their second strike and only 21 have had their third strike. So they are the numbers so far: 13000 down to 640 for the second and 21 for the third at the time when we started this debate.So Nick Tuitasi made the point that on average the people who have had three strikes have had around 70 offences each. So what we're going to see is the restoration of the conveyer belt approach to justice where violent repeat serious offenders are cycling their way through the system creating new victims going into crime getting a short sentence coming out creating more victims having another short sentence coming out and creating more victims. The purpose of this Act is to focus on those repeat serious offenders to keep them out of circulation and as Nick Tuitasi said they're not going to change. This law was designed to take these third-strike offenders out of circulation to reduce the number of victims to give the victims a break. Victims are still scared to go out at night. The message that the criminal fraternity are getting today from this Government is that for this Government when it looks at the situation New Zealanders face when it sees what's going on in Auckland when it sees the increase in gun crime when it sees the increase in violent crime when it sees the large numbers of victims of crime its conclusion its priority is to reduce the prison sentences for our worst repeat offenders. If any Government could actually go down to central Auckland's CBD and talk to the average man or woman on the street and tell them that's their priority—Chlöe Swarbrick: I'd take you down there.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well yes indeed. The member for Auckland Central who has been lamentably quiet about the breakdown of law and order in that city has something to say about that.We do not support this bill and we see it as a real—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."