Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Obviously, the date of commencement is the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I think it is slightly emblematic of this Government that they would have introduced a bill starting on a date which has already passed and are then having to have an SOP to change that date.

There is sort of a Keystone Kops element to the way that the Government has been operating for the last little while. It’s a bit like they spend $800 million on a cost of living payment to go to Kiwis, and then they go offshore to French backpackers and so forth. You couldn’t dream up this stuff if you were scripting The Thick of It, or something like that, but these things happen day in, day out. It’s a bit like the Minister in Sydney in charge of the Olympic Games. He goes down and discovers that the 100-metre track is only 95 metres, and it’s a bit of a mess and there’s a bit of a crisis in the ministerial office, trying to figure out how we’d get the 100-metre track to 95 metres.

We now, finally, have this piece of legislation before the House which was meant to commence before we’ve passed it, so the poor old Minister has to—she’s a new Minister, and I suppose it’s fair to say that she could probably point towards Kris Faafoi as being responsible for this minor little muck-up, but a muck-up nevertheless. I suppose the broader point is that given these kinds of pretty basic mistakes being made on a regular basis, what confidence have we got that we’re not going to be back in the House fixing up another little element of this which has been another mistake which they haven’t caught in time for an SOP, and I could speculate as to what that could be. They could easily have missed some of the Acts that need to be amended. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve missed a couple, and that’s how that works.

So I suppose the question I have to the Minister is, now that we’re going to move the date that it comes in until after the Royal assent and given that mistake, how can she reassure us that there won’t be other mistakes in this legislation that this House will have to come back and fix soon?

I thank the member Paul Goldsmith for his contribution. It’s a fair question with respect to why there is a Supplementary Order Paper tabled to amend the date. House time has been few and far between, and with the flurry of activity on this side of the House to pass law and good law, it is appropriate that we pass that Supplementary Order Paper to amend the date to be the day after the date of Royal assent. It’s a common-sense, pragmatic amendment, and I don’t anticipate that it will bring any further consternation to this House.

I suppose the other relevant factor, when it comes to when this bill takes effect, is the climate that we’re experiencing in terms of crime and criminality in this country. It’s never a good day, I would argue, to enact a piece of legislation that sends a message that we’re too tough on the worst repeat serious offenders as a country. That’s the message that this legislation is passing. So I’d just be interested to know whether any kind of thought will be given to that because, you know, every day we open up, we turn on our phones and see another few shops have been smashed up, we open up and we see another few people have been shot in Auckland, sadly. People’s lives have been upturned, victims have been created, and that sense of lawlessness in our cities and our countryside continues. So I suppose the question I have for the Minister is, what day is a good day for this Government to declare that, given all the situations that we face in terms of the breakdown of law and order, right now, what we need to do is reduce sentences for our worst repeat serious offenders, because that’s the problem that’s most pressing in the justice system.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to reinforce the comments made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith and I would ask the Minister to respond to that around the commencement and around her plans and the Government’s plans in terms of introducing that legislation, because he raises a very good point.

Currently in the country we have got organised crime, gang members, and even a tsunami of youth and juvenile offending whereby they feel like they can operate with impunity. It’s obvious that they feel that there’s no consequences, that they’re untouchable. It’s made our front-line police officers’ job a lot more dangerous. It’s made it much more dangerous for members of the public. The fact of the matter is, the criminal fraternity don’t like this legislation. They don’t like three-strikes legislation. It’s too tough for them, there’s actually consequences. And so at a time in our country when we are experiencing an increase in violent crime at 21 percent, when we’re experiencing a massive growth in gang members, when we’re seeing ram raids, when we’re seeing domestic firearms incidents in the last two weeks in Auckland with homicides related back to gang members, how is the Government going to manage the messaging around commencement of this—around the fact that this Parliament or this Government is removing the legislation that in terms of the organised crime, criminal, and gang members’ eyes was tough, unfair legislation that they didn’t like.

So I think that the messaging around that from the Government is going to be critically important so that they don’t just continue to throw more fuel on the fire of a bonfire that a soft on crime Government has built and is now going to be very, very difficult to get under control. For some reason, it’s beyond me, this Government—well it’s not beyond me because it completely aligns with their ideology, is they’ve come in at a time when New Zealand is experiencing the worst crime wave and the most gun violence we’ve ever had as a nation. And these guys are repealing the only piece of legislation that actually wrapped some tough sentencing around the people that are committing that crime. So I’d like to know what their messaging is going to be and how they’re going to deal with that around commencement.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. No? The Ayes have it? A party vote has been called for.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We put the motion.

Point of order. Mr Chair, we’ve just had a vote, and you declared the vote for the Noes, which means that—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): No, I did not. I did not declare the vote for the Noes. I said “The Noes have it”, “The Ayes have it”, and then I called a party vote, and the Clerk was about to conduct a party vote when the Hon Mark Mitchell attempted to take a call.

I’m very happy to have a party vote, but I would point out that it’s at the discretion of the committee, not the Chair, to decide whether a party vote is necessary.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I accept that. I called for a party vote on the basis of what I heard.

We heard no.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): And I heard yes and no.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 be agreed to.