Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): This part is in relation as the Minister said to removing strike warnings in relation to other actions so the idea is that how the legislation worked was that if somebody's a first-strike offender they're given a warning that they are a first-strike offender and that if they do another act they will be on their second strike and then they get another warning that they will be on their third strike. So it comes back to that fundamental debate that we've been having—do these warnings have any impact? Do they work? Do they have an effect? We did hear from some submitters and I remember the Criminal Bar Association making the argument that the sorts of people captured by this legislation don't tend to be thinking straight at the time of their offending. They're not taking a long-term logical view of life and having received a warning are acting cautiously as a result of that. They're living in the moment and they're full of rage or whatever it is and are offending and therefore these warnings are pointless—that seemed to be the logic. I suppose there will be cases where indeed the people involved aren't thinking straight at the time and are acting on impulse and the warning won't materially alter their actions. But presumably there will be plenty of other cases where it will be at the back of mind of people saying Heck I am on my first strike" or "I am on my second strike. I need to be careful." I don't know in my mind what the breakdown would be. Would it be half of people having that at the back of their mind and adjusting their behaviour accordingly and half living entirely on impulse? I don't know. I suppose what troubles me is that as the Ministry of Justice has pointed out there is no clear evidence on any of these matters and it strikes me as odd that nobody has made the effort to find some evidence or do some research. I suppose that's not regarded as a priority amongst groups that could be doing this kind of research and I'd encourage them to do so. But I've been wondering on what basis the Minister is operating. Is she just accepting the argument that everybody who's been given a warning is just living in the moment acting on impulse and not thinking through the consequences and therefore there is no point in having this legislation? Or does she accept that there is a variety of reactions across the board and this may be having an impact on some people's thinking and if it is that may be ultimately reducing the number of victims of crime?The other point I'd just make finally is that the impact it has on the behaviour of criminals and repeat offenders is only one part of the logic for the three-strikes legislation. It's not the entire logic of the legislation. The other fundamental part of the logic of the original legislation was to keep New Zealanders safe by keeping the worst repeat offenders out of circulation for longer recognising that these are repeat offenders and that the sooner they get back out on to the street they will reoffend. It's possible that they may be rehabilitated but it is more likely that they return to serious offending and creating more victims. So extending the period where they're out of circulation by its own act reduces the number of victims."