As the Government pats itself on the back for “listening to New Zealanders” about reinstating three-strikes criminal law, it’s receiving criticism that changes are not going far enough, and the bill’s passage is subverting parliamentary process.
Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee says Cabinet has agreed to recommend modifications to the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill.
“The bill to reinstate the three strikes law makes it clear that repeat serious violent or sexual offending is not acceptable in our society.”
Act MP McKee says the bill now includes a lowering of the qualifying sentence threshold, “so more offenders will be captured by the regime; and reactivating warnings from the previous regime where they meet this threshold”.
“Originally the bill set the threshold for triggering the regime at more than 24 months imprisonment across the board.
“While the qualifying sentence exists to ensure severe penalties are reserved for serious cases, we agree with submitters that this was set too high and are lowering it to make sure that offenders face appropriate consequences for serious violent and sexual offending.”
She says her Cabinet colleagues propose the qualifying sentence threshold will reduce to more than 12 months imprisonment at the first strike.
McKee claims as a result, more offenders will face stiffer penalties if they go on to commit serious crimes.
The threshold will remain at more than 24 months imprisonment at strikes two and three to ensure the resulting stiffer penalties are reserved for more serious offending, as is the intention of the three strikes regime.
However, Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman and lawyer Stephen Franks, a former Act Party MP, says: “The three strikes changes are a triumph of public service bureaucrats over evidence-based policy.
“Changing the threshold so a strike only counts if a crim gets 12 months imprisonment at the first strike stage and two-year threshold for second and third strikes makes no sense at all.
“The Government just doesn’t get it. The whole idea of three strikes is that the strike occurs upon conviction not based on the sentencing judge’s discretion,” Franks says.
“We’ve modelled the Government’s changes using the 25 ‘third strikers’ under the original regime.
“Under the bill as it was, just seven would qualify for a third strike. And with these changes, it’s still just eight – less than a third who would face the deterrent of a third strike under the original law.
“It doesn’t even carry over the existing strikes of the old regime. It restores strike status only to those who meet these new thresholds. It’s literally letting previous strikers off,” Franks says.
Meanwhile, the Opposition Labour Party justice spokesman Duncan Webb claims the Government is “subverting parliamentary process on laws the evidence already shows don’t work”.
“The Justice Select Committee has not reported back, and yet the Government is making changes based on what it claims the committee heard and public has said,” Webb says.
“We’re yet to even receive a draft of the select committee report, and released submissions so far show overwhelming opposition to the bill.
“The proper process to have input is through the select committee, not a selection of private emails to the minister.
“The fact Minister Nicole McKee is jumping the gun and making these changes shows she’s not interested in evidence or good process.”
In response, McKee says: “We’ve listened to submitters through the select committee process, many of whom have identified areas where the bill can be changed to deter repeat offenders and protect victims.
“We’re also making sure those who received strike warnings under the previous regime for offending which meets the qualifying threshold will keep these warnings going into the new regime.
“Those who were warned under the previous regime will face consequences if they continue to offend,” McKee says.
The previous three strikes law was introduced in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 and repealed in 2022.
