Faafoi KrisTHREE STRIKES LEGISLATION REPEAL BILLFirst ReadingHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. Can I acknowledge members of the Labour Party here and also those candidates of election 2020 who went out and campaigned strongly on a number of issues with one of them being some unfinished business that we had from the term of Government from 2017 to 2020. So I do want to acknowledge all the hard work of all my colleagues here in the House for winning a mandate on a strong election platform to make strong changes to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic but in amongst the promises that we made at the election were some what I would call business-as-usual commitments to New Zealanders. Within the justice part of our manifesto was a commitment at the 2020 election to get rid of the three-strikes legislation as it was known which was passed in 2010 by the previous National-ACT Government. Now there's going to be some smack talk from the ACT Party tonight about what is going to happen as a result of this change in the legislation. What I want to make sure and very clear to everyone at home is that you can't believe a word that the ACT Party is going to say about what was going to happen as a result of this legislation because the judiciary doesn't like this law the lawyers don't like this law the public don't like this law—and they gave us that message clearly in 2020—and we have arrived a little over a year into our Government having made the commitment to change and repeal this piece of Draconian law. We are getting on with the job and doing it. The smack talk that will come from the ACT Party and possibly from the National Party as well is that as a result of the changes people will be resentenced and let out of prison early. Now I can absolutely 100 percent categorically tell you that that is not the case because that is not contained in this legislation. I want to send a clear message to those at home saying that the Labour Party and this Labour Government acknowledge that offences were committed. Some of them or many of them—or in fact all of them—are serious offences and serious sentencing options are still available to the judiciary to deal with those serious offences. The removal of the judicial discretion that judges have when they're dealing with these serious crimes—which is what this piece of legislation has done since 2010—has meant there have been some perverse outcomes but we acknowledge that there are victims in this and there will be no revictimisation of those people during this process because there is no retrospective aspect of this bill. The principle of people being prosecuted and sentenced under the law as it stood at the time still holds true. That will not change and under this legislation no one will have their sentences reconsidered. So let's put that to bed before someone from that side of the House stands up and talks about it too. This was an ugly piece of legislation from the outset. I should remind you of some of the history of it. A very good justice Minister in the previous National Government—Simon Power—introduced this bill relatively early in their term of Parliament. Then lo and behold Mr Power who we on this side believe is a very principled man perhaps had too many principles for the National Party and all of a sudden it became the responsibility of the Hon Judith Collins to pass this legislation. I understand there probably was a bit of debate in amongst the National caucus at the time because they were dragged kicking and screaming to keep ACT happy and to make sure that this piece of legislation passed. It's bad legislation and we know that because it hasn't worked. Now what was the promise of this piece of legislation at the time from the architect of this law David Garrett? The ghost of David Garrett may still be walking these halls—an identity that no one wants to steal because of his past. But Mr Garrett said that by passing this legislation we would make our communities safer and we would see the numbers of these serious offences drop. Well that is not the case. It is not borne out in the evidence in the 10 years since this piece of legislation passed. Now I think there's also going to be an interesting debate on that side of the House around mandatory minimum sentences as well because I think I recall hearing a number of the members from the National Party discussing their distaste on mandatory minimums over there. I think I recall that during the debate so that's going to be an interesting internal debate—another interesting internal debate—for the National Party to deal with over time. So the promise of this piece of legislation has never been delivered and I think that deep down in their hearts the National Party knew that at the time. I think Simon Power knew that at the time which is why he didn't see this legislation all the way through the legislative process. I don't think I have heard of another instance where a Minister has introduced a bill and then still in that portfolio has had that piece of legislation yanked from him or maybe he requested not to have it with him in that portfolio and seen it offered up to be taken through the House by another person in another portfolio. It went from justice to corrections so there must have been some very bizarre and interesting conversations around the Cabinet table when this piece of legislation was going through in 2010 and 2011. There is a very serious side to this debate. As I have mentioned before there are victims of serious crimes here and I want to reiterate before the ACT Party stands up and misinterprets or spreads disinformation about this piece of legislation that there is no retrospectivity within this piece of legislation. So the press release that they put out before the announcement was made last Thursday again jumped the gun and they were wrong. The Labour Party and the Labour Government are very aware of the pain that the victims have been through and I want to reiterate that this piece of legislation is in no way offering resentencing options for the offenders who have already been dealt with under a first second or third strike. So I want to make sure that that is made very clear. We want the select committee to have a good look at this and I acknowledge the chair of the select committee Ginny Andersen to my left. It is a select committee that has been extremely busy. We know there will be debate on both sides of the ledger about how we have constructed this but we believe that we have got the balance right—we've got the balance right. As I've said I think the legislative statement and the speech that I've given today have pretty much summed up the position of the Government and I look forward to not only the contributions from the ACT Party—and again I give a warning to those who might be watching to take that with a rather large dose of salt—and also potentially those from the National Party as well. This was a bad piece of legislation when it was introduced. I think the National Party and the National Government knew that at the time. That's why it had an ugly passage through its process through this House. They were dragged kicking and screaming to pass this so that the ACT members could have something to wave as a part of their coalition arrangement. I look forward to the submissions at the select committee but I also look forward to making sure that this piece of legislation—which was bad legislation when it was introduced and it's bad legislation now—is repealed and we can get on with making sure that judges are the ones who have a discretion and we take a smarter approach to law and sentencing in this country. I commend this bill to the House.