Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill

I call Nicole—I’ve lost your surname.

💬 Hon Members: McKee.

Sorry—after knowing your husband for 50 years, I should know it better!

Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to rise on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. I’m going to begin by saying that I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed for the victims—for the victims of serious violent and sexual violence crime. I’m also disappointed in the way that the Minister introduced this bill to the House yesterday. The Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, began his speech by attacking the ACT Party. He got stuck into us for the way that we introduced this bill and got it through. He also attacked the National Party. He had no relevance whatsoever in his speech to three strikes. All he wanted to talk about was who wrote the bill, who moved the bill, who took over the bill, who put the bill through, and why they put it through. I was waiting to hear about victims—didn’t hear that. All I heard about was how it was unjust for certain criminals to have to go to jail and serve full time.

I was also disappointed in the way that the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence conducted her speech last night in the House, when she said that she had spoken to victims, that she had spoken to advocates—daily, I think she told us, she had done this—and she indicated that victims don’t want this law. She indicated that the victims knew that this law would not keep them safe. Yet the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) actually pointed out that no victims had been consulted at all, and what I’d like to make a statement about is that, when I left this House last night and got back to my office, I had a victim in contact with me who was in tears and said that she felt completely let down by the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence and said that she was actually hurt and felt ignored by the Minister. What was said to me was “How dare she say that we don’t want this? She is not speaking for me.” So that is disappointing, that the victims of the three strikes regime have not been talked to or consulted with in any way.

And why is this important? Well, it’s important because we need to bring, or should be bringing to the table, statistics on why we need to repeal this Act, and we’ve seen none. But what we can give is statistics for why we have to have this Act. One percent of all offenders in New Zealand are eligible under the three strikes regime, and that’s because there’s 40 qualifying offences which come under three strikes—not hundreds; 40. And those 40 relate to very serious violent crime or sexual violence crimes. It’s not a whole stack, but what we do have is 13,349 people sitting on a first strike. By the time they get to the second strike, we have 640 people. That’s quite a big difference. When we get to the third strike, we have 21 people currently sitting on their third strike. This is the worst of the worst of New Zealand’s criminals. These are not petty thieves. These are people who have found that rehabilitation, if they decide to take it, actually doesn’t work for them. And the stats show us exactly that.

Let me share some stories from some three strikes offenders. The first offender to be sentenced under three strikes carried out a vicious assault where he repeatedly punched, kicked, and struck a victim with a piece of wood. That’s strike one. After he was released from that sentence, he stalked and sexually assaulted a 17-year-old girl. That’s strike two. That’s someone’s daughter. That’s someone’s granddaughter. And, upon release, he stabbed someone in the leg. He would have received just two years and three months, but thanks to three strikes he got made to carry out the full sentence of seven years. And our streets were safer for it.

In another case, the first strike was a robbery. The offender approached a victim sitting in a carpark and demanded his car and his phone. When he refused, he forcibly dragged the victim out of the car and on to the road. Upon release, he carried out a similar offence, attacking a person after he refused to hand over money and their phone. And his third strike was again similar: when the victim refused to hand over money or their phone, they were thrown to the ground and had their head stamped on. That offender had 105 previous convictions. And thanks to three strikes, instead of getting 18 months, he got the maximum of five years, which many in New Zealand would say was well deserved. And, when we look at stats again, let’s look at the person with the highest conviction rate that is currently serving under three strikes—156 convictions, of which nine are for acts intended to cause injury. And the person with the fewest convictions—he has eight, but six of them are for sexual assault and related offences. I come back to this being the worst of the worst that we’re talking about, those that cannot be rehabilitated, and the Government has given them a very early Christmas present. And, in doing so, you’ve give victims a very early Christmas warning.

Victims have been ignored throughout this. There’s been no reports. There’s been no consultation. There’s been nothing in the RIA that says or points to the fact that three strikes doesn’t work. We will suggest, with the stats that I’ve just given, it does. And, further to that, rehabilitation is not the only way out of prison for people—doing their time under three strikes is one—and where rehabilitation can be afforded to those who want it, we want to help them with it. An ACT member, Toni Severin, has a bill in the ballot box that will address that. It’s about ensuring that those who are currently serving time undergo rehabilitation programmes, but those that don’t want to rehabilitate need to serve the time for their crime.

Where is this all going? This is going to a place where the Government is showing they’re soft on crime, soft on criminals. Legislation is more important to them than the victims of New Zealand society. There is no evidence to show that this regime needs to stop, and, in fact, we’ll go so far as to say it does work and it has worked, because there’s only 21, not 13,349, people that are currently serving full time.

This Government is not putting the victims at the centre of the justice system, and that’s very much what ACT intended to do when we put this bill through and it became an Act of law. And what we intend to carry on doing is making sure the victims, not the criminals, take centre stage within our justice system. I almost think Labour should change their name to the “Crim Cuddling Party”. We could abbreviate it to “CCP”, but I think they’re actually harder on crime than what the Labour Party are!

The worst of the worst in New Zealand society need to be held accountable for their crimes. If they don’t rehabilitate and they’re out there in society, they will create more victims. It is estimated that there will be 90 less people who were eligible for the three strikes regime in prison by 2025. That means there’s going to be more than 22 people each year, between now and 2025, that are on the streets committing serious violent or sexual violence crimes, and this Government is enabling that to happen. Victims deserve justice, and the ACT Party, along with the National Party, will want to ensure that justice is served for those who are at the other end of violent crime.

Three strikes is a success. Three strikes works. Three strikes keeps the worst of the worst where they should be: out of society and in another place, where they could learn, perhaps, to behave better. We oppose this bill.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a call on this bill as an ex-prosecutor and as someone who’s spent most of my life advocating for victims within the criminal justice system and the family system. And I do actually see the appeal of this bill. It is easy, when faced with horrible things, to want to—

💬 Hon Member: Lock people up.

Lock people up. It is very, very easy to think, let’s throw away the key. It is very, very easy to think “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” It is very, very easy to think, “Let’s get vindictive, let’s do something knee-jerk, let’s do something hard because it makes us feel good.” Do you know how long it makes us feel good? About 30 seconds, because the problem is it doesn’t work. It would be fine, if this actually effected some change.

This is where I have real issue with the previous speaker, Nicole McKee, and also with the previous speakers last night. I do want to talk about this because I’m afraid there’s been a misreading of the data. The suggestion that this law makes a difference, were it true—for me—that would be the bottom line. If it actually effects change, let’s go with it. The problem is it doesn’t. Last night, Mr Mitchell was quoting from the evidence brief of 2018, which I have here with me, and I believe these are some of the figures that my colleague Ms McKee was also quoting. The nice thing about this is Mr Mitchell got as far as page 3, and at the top of page 3 he read out some stats about the different figures for who was at different levels of the stage one or stage two or stage three. And he said, “There it is. There’s the proof” I’m paraphrasing here, “There’s the proof. Explain to me how this isn’t working.”

If Mr Mitchell or my other colleagues across the House had read down another paragraph, they would have been able to spot this little gem: “Looking simply at changes in the rate of these three categories of offences since the New Zealand three strikes law came into effect we can see few changes that are easily attributable to the new law.” If they’d read on just a couple more paragraphs—I know there’s big words there, I know it’s difficult to deal with all this data, but if they’d read on just a few more paragraphs, they would have come to this little gem: “Convictions have proven to be”—wait for it—“stable.” Even increasing since the law was enacted, we’re talking since 2010—that was on you guys. Based on the data alone, there is no distinct indication that the three strikes legislation is deterring individuals from committing qualifying offences.

Now, let me break that down for my colleagues across the House. The translation out of academic speak is “meh”. Got that? Or, in other words, “It’s a waste of time.” It’s not just a waste of time, though; it’s actually causing problems. It is causing us money keeping prisoners in. It is preventing us putting them through rehabilitation, because until you’re eligible for parole, you can’t get rehabilitation. And it’s increasing court time because, as every good defence lawyer knows, if the sentence is high, the defendant is likely to contest it. At the same time, it is indiscriminate. It prevents judges from taking into account mental illness. It prevents them from correctly weighing simple things like where your strike three is; for example—and these are real examples—a pinch on the bum. Excuse my language, Madam Speaker, or possibly a kiss. These things do not merit the full weight of the sentence. Judges at the same time can still deal with the worst offenders just as they always have. I dislike knee-jerk reactions. I dislike simple, vindictive sugar hits. I came here to make a real difference, and for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. As the House will be aware, the National Party opposes this piece of legislation. “The policy implemented by the Bill is … [repealing] … the elements of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 that collectively create what is [commonly] known as the three strikes law. … The Government’s objectives in repealing the law are to remove the mandatory sentencing requirements that result in”—what they say is—“excessive and disproportionate sentence outcomes by preventing Judges from taking the individual circumstances of the offender and the offending into account. … Repealing the three strikes law”—they say—“will revert the sentencing process for strike offences to standard sentencing practices by allowing the Judge to reach an appropriate outcome on a case-by-case basis.”, and that the “Bill expressly excludes any entitlement to compensation relating to the impacts of the three strikes law, and [there are] no transitional arrangements for those currently serving sentences of imprisonment for a strike offence”.

This bill, in a lot of ways, appears to be dealing with the contortions that the courts have been going through in trying to wrestle with three strikes, when the judges don’t entirely agree with the law as it has been written. I note that the recent Supreme Court case of Fitzgerald and the Queen wrestled with this exact issue. One of the judges was of the view that the language, scheme, and purpose of the three-strikes regime do not allow for the interpretation reached by the majority—i.e., that the law as written in section 86D(2) would not be subject to any exception. However, the majority of the Supreme Court were of the view that the appellant’s sentence of seven years’ imprisonment went well beyond excessive punishment and would shock the conscience of properly informed New Zealanders, and was therefore so disproportionately severe as to breach section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And therefore they held that section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act changed the interpretation of this section.

That’s interesting because the judges have made an interpretation of what they’re conscious of properly informed New Zealanders, but the National Party notes that the three-strikes law is popular amongst in New Zealanders, and in 2018, 68 percent of New Zealanders in a Sensible Sentencing Trust survey were in favour of the law. The National Party said that this demonstrates strong support for the law amongst the public. The same survey found that 78 percent of National voters were in favour of the law, 63 percent of Labour voters were in favour, and 48 percent of Green voters were in favour. Most recent data shows that second- and third-strike offenders only make up 1.35 percent of the total prison population, and that’s, obviously, a very small percentage of that population.

I can say, having worked both on the prosecution and the defence side of the bar, that there are some cases which are challenging. I’ve certainly seen some defendants come through who didn’t think about the consequences when they engaged in behaviours that engaged the three-strikes law. But equally, only last week, I was talking to a prison officer who gave me his experience and perspective of having worked in a prison, and he said that he’d seen, on many occasions, people who had their first or second strike not getting involved in a fight out in the prison yard because they were aware that if they did something that engaged the three-strikes law they would be in a heck of a lot of trouble, basically—they’d be spending a long time in prison. So that’s an example that this prison officer gave to me, saying that the three-strikes law can work and can make people actually reconsider their decisions, which is certainly what the intention of it was.

Certainly, judges do have a challenging role to play in sentencing, because they have to address deterrents—so offenders who are punished are less likely to offend, and that’s certainly the objective of it, and their punishment will also send a message to others who may think of offending in the same way and would deter them. There’s also the protection of the community. So the punishment would certainly, if someone’s in prison, make them rather difficult for them to reoffend unless it’s in the prison yard, but that prison officer has indicated that that would make at least some people reconsider their decisions. It also holds them to account for their behaviour. The other factor that judges must take into account is certainly rehabilitation. So if a crime occurs, the idea is to try to address the underlying causes of that, and that’s certainly something.

But this bill is one that is seeking to resolve a challenge and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time has expired.

The three strikes law should be gone. It doesn’t work, it’s unfair, and we already have the systems in place to show fairness to victims. This law that we are proposing rectifies an aberration, a knee-jerk reaction from the National Party in 2010. It was an example of populist politics: pandering to the mainstream, looking for news headlines, locking people up and throwing away the key in a very simplistic way, and dividing the world up into criminals and victims.

It does not look at the causes of crime and the fairness, and whether this actually prevents crime from happening. I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t take the Sensible Sentencing Trust survey as evidence that this prevents crimes from happening. What this Act does do—the current Act that hasn’t yet been repealed—is it reinforces the biases that are already in the system. Who are most likely to get searched? Who are most likely to get arrested? It’s Māori. Who are more likely to have issues around access to justice? Māori. Who are more likely to end up in prison? Māori. So what this does, it reinforces the current biases in the system in a really simplistic way.

We already have ample systems in place to be able to sentence correctly, and that is for judges to do. There’s preventative detention, there’s public protection and extended supervision orders, minimum periods and maximum periods for imprisonment, and imposing maximum penalties. We’ve seen that with the RSA case. We’ve seen that with other cases. In summary, this law puts sentencing back to where it belongs: with judges, because sentencing is not for legislators. Judges should sentence. They do their important work with the context of the crime, the history of the offender, and impact reports. That is why we need three strikes out of this place and sentencing to go back to judges, where it belongs. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take what will only be a short call as we near the conclusion of this debate. It was interesting to listen, through the passionate speeches in the House last night, starting with that of the Minister of Justice, who I would like to commend for bringing this bill to the House. It is something that the Labour Party promised to do at the election and it is a pleasure to be standing here today to take the first steps in making that promise become a reality.

Why I want to stand this afternoon and add my short contribution is because what the evidence shows us is that, unfortunately, Māori, who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, are overrepresented in the statistics for this legislation, which you have heard wonderful speeches on this side of the House, talking about how it is so unfair, it is so unjust, it is so unnecessary; in fact, it is in contradiction to many of the principles of our justice system. The statistic that I wanted to highlight is that of the 23 offenders who have received a third strike, 81 percent were Māori. To me, that is completely unfair, unjust, unacceptable—not something I can stand in this House and support its continuation of.

I do not want to prolong this any longer. I want to commend this bill to the House. I want us to get rid of this unfair and unjust law. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has to be the wokest on crime Government that we have ever seen in passing legislation like this, repealing a piece of legislation which puts victims at the heart of our criminal justice system and sending a very clear message that they will be putting criminals at the heart of our criminal justice system. This is a dangerous piece of legislation and will leave our communities less safe and New Zealanders less safe under this Government.

I am incredibly concerned by what this Government is doing. They’re repealing a piece of legislation which has a very clear principle: if you commit a serious, violent offence in New Zealand, you will suffer the consequences of that decision; if you do one of the crimes listed in this piece of legislation, you will do the time in prison. This bill goes against that principle, which sends a very clear message to criminals and those who commit serious crimes that this Government is on their side and not on the side of the people who are the victims. We’ve heard members talk about the crime rate and those who commit crimes and the disproportionate number of Māori in our prisons. But what about the disproportionate number of Māori who are victims of crime? I haven’t heard one member on the other side say anything about those victims in these situations.

I want to read out some of the list of offences which are qualifying offences under the three strikes legislation. This is not stealing a Mars bar from the dairy. These are incredibly serious crimes: sexual violation, attempted sexual violation, sexual connection with consent induced by threat, sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years of age, sexual connection with a child, attempted sexual connection with a child, indecent act on a child, sexual connection with a young person, indecent assault, attempted exploitative sexual connection with a person with significant impairment, murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent to injure, injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, using a firearm against law enforcement officer—using a firearm against our police officers and they’re going to stand on the side of the law which says we don’t think that should be covered by the three strikes legislation—aggravated robbery, kidnapping. They’re going to be standing on the side of kidnappers rather than on the side of victims. I find it absolutely abhorrent that this Government is repealing a piece of legislation which protects the victims of crime. And what about this one: infecting with disease? At a time of COVID-19, they’re saying, well, actually, we’re going to put that down a line. Also, commissioning of crime with firearm, aggravated injury, aggravated wounding, discharging firearm, or doing dangerous act with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

That is only some of this list of very serious violent offences which are covered by this piece of legislation. And as I said, the important principle is: if you commit a serious, violent offence in New Zealand you should suffer the consequences of that, and if you do it a second time, there’ll be more consequences, and if you do it a third time, you will have to serve the full sentence in prison. That is about public safety.

I want to read out something about one of these third strike offences. Shane Pierre Harrison: previous convictions, 80—80 previous convictions, including manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, torture, multiple assaults and firearm offences, indecent assault against a police officer, murder, and reckless discharge of a firearm. Those are the offences committed by someone who was never going to be rehabilitated, and the evidence is very clear. If someone, and this is the evidence from Corrections, is on a second or third offence, there is an 85 percent chance of that person recommitting crime again in New Zealand—an 85 percent chance of another victim of an incredibly serious crime being committed. That’s why this important piece of legislation has a very simple principle: if you commit a serious, violent offence in New Zealand, you will suffer the consequences of that decision.

What I’d like to also touch on is the fact that this piece of legislation actually works. It’s been in place now for over 10 years. And the reality is, whilst there have been 13,349 first strike offences, there have only been 640 second strike offences, and, even fewer, there have only been 21 third strike offences. That evidence points to the fact that it works. It has a deterrent effect on those who commit these serious crimes, but it also, importantly, protects the public by locking them up behind bars and keeping New Zealanders safe so there are not more victims of crime being put through the injustice of the criminal acts that these people perpetrate.

The next point I’d like to talk about is the fact that this Government didn’t even talk to one single victim of crime before bringing this legislation to Parliament. They didn’t even talk to one single victim of crime. I find that absolutely abhorrent. The Minister of Justice couldn’t even get on the phone and talk to any victims association or victims organisation or a victim of crime before actually putting this legislation to Parliament. That is something which I think sends a very clear message about the priorities of this Government. It’s criminals first and it’s victims—well, they’re an afterthought. Maybe they can make a submission to the select committee; we might listen, but then we eventually ignore them through that process. That is an absolute shame.

The next point I want to make is that the Government has not ruled out this legislation being retrospective—yes, the letter of the law in front of us, it’s not retrospective. It means that the bill currently, as it stands—it means that some of these people who have had third strike offences can go and apply to have themselves resentenced. But the Minister of Justice has made it clear in his press conference last week, “I’m open to the submissions which come through the select committee.” They are leaving the door open to this potentially being retrospective, and that undermines the principle that if you commit a crime, you suffer the consequences of the law as it stands at the time you commit the crime. Well, they should be keeping that door firmly shut, rather than having it just a little bit open to allow the select committee to potentially make some changes and then bring something very different back to this House. I want the Minister of Justice to completely rule that part out.

The next point is judicial interference. The Government is saying the judges want this. Well, the judges should be putting in place that law as it stands. They shouldn’t be telling Parliament what the law should be when it comes to sentencing. Parliament sets the sentencing laws in New Zealand. Parliament sets the sentencing policy for the judiciary. The judiciary’s job is to apply that law, not to try and get around it. This is incredibly concerning. When I read the regulatory impact statement, I learnt that there are judges that are holding back on sentencing some people in expectation of this law coming into effect. I find it absolutely outrageous that there are judges who are holding back on sentencing because they’re waiting for this piece of legislation. This Government has sent a very clear message throughout the criminal justice system: we want to see the prison population drop. They’ve sent their message very clearly and it is being put into effect throughout the criminal justice system. I find that incredibly, incredibly worrying.

But I would like to make one point, one last point. The Government is not repealing one part of the three strikes legislation which was passed, and that was the part which said that a judge could impose a life sentence in a case where there was extreme circumstances—and that’s only ever been used once, and we know who that person is, the Christchurch killer, who has been put on a life sentence under that. They voted against that. They voted against that part of the legislation coming into Parliament, but they’re not repealing it. And I say “Good on you for not repealing it.”, because, actually, sometimes you need to have very tough penalties and sometimes, as we’ve seen, that has worked and that is important.

So, as I started, this Government is the wokest on crime Government I’ve ever seen. They’re soft on crime. And this piece of legislation puts victims of crime behind the criminals. The criminals are being put first and the victims last—they’re an afterthought. That’s unacceptable. We will oppose it and we will reinstate this legislation when we get back into Government.

Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to calm things down a bit and stop quoting from dodgy surveys and reports which are inconclusive. I thought what I’d start with are some basic principles of sentencing, you know, and so I did a little bit of reading and I had a look at the Sentencing Act. You know, the first principle of the Sentencing Act is that the sentencing judge should “take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of the offender”. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Sentencing isn’t some brightline question; it’s a question of balancing the rights of the victim with the culpability of the offender. Here you go. This is section 8 of the Sentencing Act: “must take into account any particular circumstances of the offender that mean a sentence or other means of dealing with the offender that would otherwise be appropriate would, in the particular instance, be disproportionately severe”. Should we throw that away? No, I don’t think so. I think that’s an important principle.

But what does the three strikes legislation do? Well, it removes entirely any ability of a judge, a sentencing judge, to take any of the circumstances into account, whether they be the victims’ circumstances or the offenders’ circumstances. It says, “if on [the] occasion, an offender is convicted of 1 or more stage-3”—that is, third strike offences—“… [then] the High Court must sentence the offender to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for each offence.” Well, that is entirely disproportionate, in many cases, and entirely inappropriate.

Of course, then there’s section 27 of the Sentencing Act, which is actually something we do because of the partnership we have with Māori: allows an offender to seek a cultural report about whānau circumstances, community, and cultural background. Shall we take that into account when we sentence someone, or shall we throw that out of the window as well? I think not. I think that the three strikes regime, which ignores cultural background, is a travesty which would utterly trammel our Treaty obligations.

Then we’ve got section 9, which goes through aggravating and mitigating factors. Shall we look at aggravating and mitigating factors when we sentence an offender, or should we get rid of that as well? Shall we take the age of the offender into account? No? Shall we take, perhaps, whether or not the offender pleaded guilty? That’s an important one, because we know that serious offenders who plead guilty have that taken into account largely because it’s a much better outcome for victims. Victims are not put through the trauma of a trial, and we need to be able to encourage that, not to tell a third strike offender, “Don’t worry. Go through a full trial, put your victim through another trauma, because you get no discount for it.” Oh, and what about diminished intellectual capacity? Should we take that into account or not?

Here’s another little thing: the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that everyone—

💬 Hon Member: Oh!

Oh yeah, I know, you scoff at it, but it’s actually quite a good thing. On this side of the House, we believe in human rights, and section 9 says that “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture … cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment”. And you know what? Here’s a few words you might find familiar: that the three strikes legislation will result in “disparities between offenders that are not rationally based” and it will result in “gross disproportionality in sentencing”, and “I consider it to be in contravention of the Bill of Rights Act.”—great Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s words on this Act when it passed in the House.

Look, let me talk a little bit about an actual case, the case of Fitzgerald, that happened here in Wellington, where a man was described as having longstanding serious mental illnesses, and what did he do? He kissed a woman in Cuba Mall without consent. He grabbed her and he kissed her, and that is an indecent assault. I want to recognise—the law report records—it was traumatic for the victim. He was up for seven years inside because he had two—this mentally disabled person who had serious difficulties, was sometimes homeless, was up for seven years in prison because he kissed a woman in Cuba Mall. And you know what? The Court of Appeal, when it looked at it, said this: “Mr Fitzgerald should be receiving care and support in an appropriate facility, not serving a lengthy term of imprisonment. He has ended up in prison for a very long term, in circumstances where he should not be there at all.” That’s what the National Party would have us stick with. In that case, the Supreme Court has had to do linguistic somersaults to find a way for this mentally disabled person to avoid it.

So I very much support the repeal of this unjust legislation, which absolutely trammels not only on the rights of offenders to be dealt with in a way which isn’t cruel and degrading but also on the rights of victims to make sure that offenders are sentenced appropriately and fairly and in a way which takes into account all the circumstances. I’ll close on this: if we are dealing with the worst of the worst—terms I see used all of the time on the other side of the House—then let’s look at the principle in section 8(c) of the Sentencing Act, which says that the court “must”—not “may” but “must”—“impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases”. So we’ve got it there already. We don’t need the three strikes. We’ve got a robust Sentencing Act, and it will be a damn sight better when we strip out these offensive provisions. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.