Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Chair. I do want to work through and I do want to address the issues that the Minister has raised in the committee. And I'm honestly sitting here scratching my head and wondering how this Government can justify repealing the only piece of legislation that actually wraps some proper consequences in sentencing around recidivist violent offenders at a time in this country when we're seeing a massive tsunami of violent crime and offending in the nation.Let me just work through them one by one. The Ministry of Justice advice: the Minister got up and somehow she spent 10 minutes saying a lot without saying much or addressing any of the issues that my colleague Paul Goldsmith raised. In relation to the Ministry of Justice advice it was quite clear to the committee and that is that there is no evidence to show whether or not the three strikes legislation is working or is not working. But if you actually took a pragmatic and a practical view to it and you actually looked at what is the reduction between first strike offending and second strike offending and what is the reduction between second strike offending and third strike offending then you'd have to say that the legislation is actually working as a deterrent.The proposition that she brought to this committee is that because we can't clearly see that this legislation is acting as a deterrent and because we still have a rise in serious offending in this country which absolutely we do then we're going to get rid of it. Well if you're going to apply that logic get rid of the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act and every other Act that sits on our legislation books because they obviously aren't working at all. So I'd like the Minister to get up and actually explain to me her logic and her rationale for cherry-picking and taking one piece of legislation that deals with serious recidivist offenders. And because we continue to have a serious increase in violent crime in this country the Government is saying it's the fault of the three strikes legislation—three strikes legislation isn't working and containing and driving down serious violent crime. What a ridiculous proposition to bring to this committee.If she's offended by the comments of Paul Goldsmith that it's an infantile approach and argument then I completely and totally support that: it is infantile. It's a case of coming to this committee and telling the country that because we've got a rise in crime in this country three strikes is to blame and we're going to get rid of it and we're going to repeal it. Well repeal the Crimes Act and repeal the Summary Offences Act in their entirety because they're obviously not working and containing serious violent crime in this country as well. It's absolutely ridiculous. I'd like the Minister to get up and explain to me her rationale around that.The second part—and I find this deeply offensive and the Minister in the Chamber that spoke to this bill the Hon Peeni Henare raised this in his opening comments as well. And the Minister just did and said Well we're going to get rid of the three strikes legislation because we think it's going to have an impact on serious violent offenders not wanting to plead guilty and they plead not guilty." Who cares? Who cares about that Minister? The victims don't. The victims want justice. They want legislation in place.And I come back to the comments that the Hon Judith Collins made which is that the victims get deeply traumatised every time they come back into our criminal justice system. It's not a friendly place for them. It's traumatising. So actually with the peace of mind that victims get when a serious recidivist offender is being sentenced under the three strikes legislation they know that they aren't going to have to go back and attend a parole hearing they know they're not going to have to go back and re-visit a victim impact statement and they know that they can actually relax and get on and enjoy their lives as much as they can while they're still trying to recover from what was some form of serious offending against them. And the Minister comes to this committee and says "We're more worried about the offenders. We're more worried about the perpetrators. We're more worried about having an adverse effect on them and them not pleading guilty and pleading not guilty because they don't want to be captured by the three strikes legislation." What a ridiculous perverse argument.It comes back to the fact—and again alluding to the comments from the Hon Judith Collins—where do you hear about victims? Where do victims come into this—the victim advocacy groups that came to the committee made very very good submissions? They raised the issues that were important to them and said that they want the three strikes legislation to remain in place.So I ask the Minister to stand and address the issues that I have just addressed in terms of the comments that she has made to the committee and outline them for us. Thank you Mr Chair."