Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): You know that this bill is a complete and utter waste of this House's time and should never be here when you have the Minister that speaks to it that can't even get a 10-minute speech out of it. Then you've got the select committee chair that can barely get to five minutes and actually talk to the bill. Do you know why that is? It's because there is no reason there is no evidence there is no advice that's come from Justice or from anyone else to say that this Act isn't effective and it's doing the job that it was intended to do. By the way the Ministers on that side hate being referred to as a soft-on-crime Government. If you want no better example of a soft-on-crime Government you just think about this—and any of the Kiwis that are listening tonight to this debate just think about this. Government's priority at a time in our country when we've had a 40 percent increase in gang numbers when we've had a 21 percent increase in violent crime when we've had a 31 percent in violent retail crime when the Police need the powers that should be contained inside a firearms prohibition order piece of legislation do you know what they prioritised? Do you know what's leading in the House? It's the repeal of the three-strikes legislation. So don't come to this House and don't cry crocodile tears out there to the media when you keep getting referred to as a soft-on-crime Government" when you have prioritised legislation that weakens sentencing for violent offending over legislation that would've given the Police the powers that they need to take guns out of the hands of gangs. That's why you get labelled a soft-on-crime Government. You've got your priorities wrong.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just warn the members just be careful about the personal pronouns. You are bringing the Speaker into the debate. Refer to the Government if you like.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Speaker. Very quickly this is not the first time they've had a go at this; they had a go at this when I was the justice spokesperson and we stood in this House and we debated it and we managed to defeat them and stop the legislation from being repealed because at that point they didn't have a majority. I'll tell you what: if there's ever an example why a majority creates absolute power and absolute power is not a good thing it's the example of the repeal of this bill.I noticed that the Hon Andrew Little became quite animated in response to my friend and colleague Paul Goldsmith's speech. As much as I like Andrew on a personal level I can tell you that he fronted up to this House as the Minister of Justice and the excuse that they used then to repeal the three-strikes legislation bill is that they used the terrible example of a female Corrections officer being pinched on the bottom. That's how they characterised a sexual assault on a female Corrections officer. The offender they were able to get sentenced under the three-strikes legislation. I stood in this House and I confronted the Minister about it and I notice that his head's down now and he's not wanting to comment on it; there doesn't appear to be a lot of noise coming from the other side of the House. That's because it was a disgrace that Labour brought to this House and characterised a sexual assault on a female Corrections officer as "a pinch on the bottom." I can tell you now that the emails I received from female Corrections officers after that happened you would've been embarrassed ashamed and you would have stood and actually made an apology which by the way none of the female Labour MPs during that period of time would actually stand and take a stand on that.Ginny Andersen: What's this got to do with the bill?Hon MARK MITCHELL: This has got every—who just said that? Oh so I'm talking about a really important issue and an issue that we should actually address in this House and the female chair is laughing now—the female chair of the Justice Committee says "What's this got to do with the three-strikes bill?" Do you not know the history? Do you not know your party's history and what you've actually tried to do with this bill? Do you not know the examples that you've used and do you stand by them do you think that's a good example? A female Corrections officer was sexually assaulted was held up in the corner in the prison in her workplace and your party decided to characterise it as a "pinch on the bottom"—do you agree with that? Do you think that's a good use of an example to repeal three strikes?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Yep I gave the member a warning about using the personal pronoun "you"; by using that you are bringing the Speaker into the debate. There are many ways and other alternative words that the member can choose to use and still have the same effect.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Speaker; I tend to get a bit passionate about that issue. So let's go back to it. The member Ginny Andersen the chair of the Justice Committee she's laughing and she's joking about this matter. So I will put to Ginny Andersen: does she think that it was appropriate to bring an example into this House of a sexual assault on a female Corrections officer in her workplace and have it characterised by her party as "a pinch on the bottom"? She had a lot to say—she had a lot to say a few minutes ago. There was laughter and banter; now she has her head down and she won't address me because do you know what? Ginny Andersen won't actually answer that question because she knows that it was wrong and at the time none of her colleagues stood up and actually stood up for that female Corrections officer. None of them said that that was wrong—Kieran McAnulty: Will the member yield?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely I yield.Ginny Andersen: I think I'd like to respond to that. I take accusations of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct in the workplace incredibly seriously. I take offence that that member has indicated that I do not care about such issues of huge importance and I object to that language being used in the House.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Mr Speaker can I carry on?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.Hon MARK MITCHELL: So let me clarify for the member: everything that I've said is exactly what's happened. So if the member wants to stand and if she wants to dispute anything that I've said then she's welcome to do that. I'm glad that the member takes sexual assault on a woman in the workplace seriously; it's just a shame that she didn't stand when the Minister brought that issue to this House and get up and say that.Hon Member: And that there was mocking behaviour during the debate.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah and that's a very good point. The reason why I asked the member to respond is because there was mocking behaviour—there was mocking behaviour when I raised that issue as if it wasn't serious as if it was trivialised as if they thought it was funny—and it's not.Getting back to the three-strikes legislation bill that got voted down that time round—Hon Andrew Little: No it didn't; it's never been to the House.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and it should have been voted down. Well it has absolutely—Hon Andrew Little: No it has not.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely it's been to the House.Hon Andrew Little: The member has got it wrong. The member is just plain wrong.Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Minister is now saying that there was no debate in the House about the repeal of the three-strikes legislation so I'm very happy to be corrected on that.When the Minister came to the House today and delivered his speech on the reason why they're repealing the three-strikes legislation he said it was to stop offenders because to have strong sentencing as is contained in the three-strikes legislation may be a deterrent for offenders to stop pleading guilty. We received no evidence on the select committee at all to say that there was anything to show that the three-strikes legislation or legislation like it stopped offenders from pleading guilty. I think that is misleading the House and I would expect the Minister to come down and correct that statement or point us in the direction of where that evidence was received on the committee.The heart of the matter is that for some reason the Labour Party feel deeply offended that the judge has been given some clear direction because of the way that most people in New Zealand feel that actually there should be some clear consequences and there should be some very very clear sentencing around recidivist violent repeat offenders which is what this bill deals with. But instead they go "No; we know better."The interesting thing around the submissions that were received in the select committee was this: the victims advocate groups and the victims themselves—and you don't hear victims talked about much these days do you? But actually victims should be at the centre of our criminal justice system. They all got up and spoke in support of the three-strikes legislation. They made very strong submissions in support of the three-strikes legislation the victims themselves. The groups that spoke against it? Guess what! Lawyers—lawyers that go on to become judges and get a bit offended and a bit sensitive by the fact that they don't retain the full say the full ability to actually decide on the sentence.Do you know what? If you surveyed New Zealand—especially at the moment with the incredible amount of violent crime that we're experiencing in the country; completely unprecedented and outrageous for a peaceful country like New Zealand to be experiencing—they would say that they're not confident in the sentences that are being handed down. They'd say that they're not confident in the way the judicial system is supporting our police. They'd say that the youth justice system doesn't seem to be responding strongly enough to the tsunami of juvenile and youth offending and actually they'd like to have some confidence that there's some legislation there that will mean that there are some strong sentences laid down and there are some serious consequences for repeat recidivist violent offenders especially.But what do these guys do? What do the soft-on-crime Government do? They prioritise the repeal of the three-strikes legislation; the only legislation that at a time when we're experiencing massive crime violence and lawlessness in our country they're saying "You know what? Let's take away that tough piece of legislation because we don't like it."Nicole McKee: "We want to cuddle them."Hon MARK MITCHELL: "We want to cuddle them."—exactly. Absolutely.So I'm embarrassed that this House is dealing with this bill. I'll continue to get up and make impassioned speeches when I have the opportunity because I think this is wrong. By the way I come back to the fact the firearms—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."