October 22, 2024 • 5 mins
The Government has been accused of 'jumping the gun' and changing the Three Strikes bill before receiving advice from the select committee.
The qualifying threshold for a first strike will be lowered from 24 months imprisonment to 12 months in order to catch out more offenders.
Labour has claimed this is the 'latest instance' of the Government making amendments to controversial legislation, pointing out changes to the gang patch ban and fast-track consenting bills.
Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee says they've listened to people claim the regime needed to be tougher - and taken that feedback into account.
"What we're predicting now over a 10-year period is consequence and accountability for those serious, violent offenders."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Heather du for Zilo. Now, as predicted, the governments had
to beef up the proposed new three strikes law. It's
going to drop the qualifying threshold for the first strike
from two years jail down to one year jail, and
it will carry over the strikes from the last time
that the law was around. Associate Minister of Justice Nicole
McKay's with us now, Nicole.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Good afternoon, Heather, Nicole.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Did you see the Sensible Sentencing Trusts analysis of how
many more people you're going to catch with us change today?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I have not seen their analysis today. But what we
have done heither is we've listened to people who have
submitted to us, who have called you up and said
that they didn't like the regime as it was and
it needed to be tougher. And that's exactly what we've done,
is listen to them, and we've implemented these changes. Well, well,
we've made proposals to implement these changes.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
So what the Sensible Sentencing Trust has done is they
had a look at the last time the law was around.
There were twenty five people who got to the third
strike law. According to the way that you're proposing this law,
only seven of them would get a third strike. But
because the changes you made today, more people will get
to third strike. Eight. Yes, that's eight. How does this
(01:10):
sit easy with you that your legislation as proposed would
only catch a third of the bad guys caught last
time round.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Well, at the end of the day, what we are
going to have on modeling of figures that we've got
now is that instead of having eight hundred people getting
a first strike, we're looking at twelve one hundred on
a first strike. We're going to have nine hundred and
fifteen that will be eligible for a second strike. This
is predicted numbers as opposed to two hundred and sixty six,
(01:37):
and we'll be looking at ninety nine people receiving a
third strike as opposed to eleven.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
What period of time are you using here?
Speaker 2 (01:46):
This is over the first ten years? And how to
be over that? It has to be over that time
period because for the second strike it's no parole, so
they have to serve the full time.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
How long the numbers that I was using of twenty
five on third strike? Fast time around the law was
the last time the law was round? How long was
that law around for that? We got to twenty five.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
So that law was implemented over a period of about
eleven years. We did not see the full measure of
it because, as I mentioned a third time, yes, what
we're predicting now over a ten year period is serious
consequence and accountability for those serious violent offenders. And I
think also we need to alleviate some of the concerns
(02:28):
people have out there about petty crime being picked up
on this. It's not about petty theft or anything like.
This is about serious violence.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I know, because you've picked forty crimes that people can
get picked up for. But what I want to know
is why are you Why are you watering this down
to the extent that of the twenty five people who
reached third strike last time, nineteen or what does it,
seventeen of them walk away, they don't even get to
third strike, Why are you doing that?
Speaker 2 (02:53):
They won't necessarily walk away because one of the things
that we are reactivating is an introduction of those past
defenses being brought forward into the new regime if they
meet the qualifying criteria, and those twenty five people that
were serving a third strike will meet the qualifying criteria.
I don't know that you're going to be with them.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Are you failing to understand my point deliberately or is
it just an accident.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
No, it's because we have found that under the previous
regime we had some minor lower level offenders being caught
up in the system. And this has always been about
going after those serious fires.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And let me give you I'll give you an example
of a minor lower level offender. Okay, there's a chap
called Rana Peritomata who ended up being a third striker
because he murdered his girlfriend in twenty nineteen. Under your laws,
he would not be a third striker, he'd be a
second striker because his first strike offense, which was an
aggravated robbery, he was only sentenced to eight months home
d Nicole. That's not a light offense. That's massive. He
(03:52):
got eight months and your law wouldn't even give him
a first strike. Are you sure you want to do that?
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah? I am sure that we're going about this the
right way because what we've also introduced under this regime
is not only for the judges to be able to
look at manifestly are just and pull out the lower levels,
but also putting some not discretion, but the ability for
the judges to fit within the regime that we are
currently trying to apply, so that they don't please their
(04:20):
minimum sentences.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Why should our friend that an a peritomat who committed
an aggravated robbery not get a first strike for that.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
What we need to ensure is that those really low
level ones are not captured, but the more serious ones are.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Robber low level.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
This guy has committed an offense that fits the new criteria,
then he should absolutely be struck or struck for it.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
But he won't because laws strike.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Because he's already third served a third strike, he will
still be within that system. This is about an escalation, right,
This is about making sure that people are a accountable
for the actions that they have committed. But we still
can't make sure that the lower level ones are caught
up on it. So we've got to look at how
we direct or not direct, but how we outline what
(05:12):
the judges, what we expect of the judges in sentencing,
while still giving them the ability to make sure the
ones that just smack somebody's bottom that are not getting
twenty years in prison. So there's a fine line to
be had there and I think that we have made
it stricter, stronger. We're showing accountability to those to those
offenders and we're going to be looking after the victims.
(05:34):
But at the end of the day, we want to
make sure that those serious violence sexual offenders are locked
up and those bringing up you're.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Not doing that. That's my point and Nicole will have
to leave it there. Thank you for your time, appreciate
it as always. Nicole McKey, Associate Minister of Justice. For
more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to news talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Heather du for Zilo. Now, as predicted, the governments had
to beef up the proposed new three strikes law. It's
going to drop the qualifying threshold for the first strike
from two years jail down to one year jail, and
it will carry over the strikes from the last time
that the law was around. Associate Minister of Justice Nicole
McKay's with us now, Nicole.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Good afternoon, Heather, Nicole.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Did you see the Sensible Sentencing Trusts analysis of how
many more people you're going to catch with us change today?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
I have not seen their analysis today. But what we
have done heither is we've listened to people who have
submitted to us, who have called you up and said
that they didn't like the regime as it was and
it needed to be tougher. And that's exactly what we've done,
is listen to them, and we've implemented these changes. Well, well,
we've made proposals to implement these changes.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
So what the Sensible Sentencing Trust has done is they
had a look at the last time the law was around.
There were twenty five people who got to the third
strike law. According to the way that you're proposing this law,
only seven of them would get a third strike. But
because the changes you made today, more people will get
to third strike. Eight. Yes, that's eight. How does this
(01:10):
sit easy with you that your legislation as proposed would
only catch a third of the bad guys caught last
time round.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Well, at the end of the day, what we are
going to have on modeling of figures that we've got
now is that instead of having eight hundred people getting
a first strike, we're looking at twelve one hundred on
a first strike. We're going to have nine hundred and
fifteen that will be eligible for a second strike. This
is predicted numbers as opposed to two hundred and sixty six,
(01:37):
and we'll be looking at ninety nine people receiving a
third strike as opposed to eleven.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
What period of time are you using here?
Speaker 2 (01:46):
This is over the first ten years? And how to
be over that? It has to be over that time
period because for the second strike it's no parole, so
they have to serve the full time.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
How long the numbers that I was using of twenty
five on third strike? Fast time around the law was
the last time the law was round? How long was
that law around for that? We got to twenty five.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
So that law was implemented over a period of about
eleven years. We did not see the full measure of
it because, as I mentioned a third time, yes, what
we're predicting now over a ten year period is serious
consequence and accountability for those serious violent offenders. And I
think also we need to alleviate some of the concerns
(02:28):
people have out there about petty crime being picked up
on this. It's not about petty theft or anything like.
This is about serious violence.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I know, because you've picked forty crimes that people can
get picked up for. But what I want to know
is why are you Why are you watering this down
to the extent that of the twenty five people who
reached third strike last time, nineteen or what does it,
seventeen of them walk away, they don't even get to
third strike, Why are you doing that?
Speaker 2 (02:53):
They won't necessarily walk away because one of the things
that we are reactivating is an introduction of those past
defenses being brought forward into the new regime if they
meet the qualifying criteria, and those twenty five people that
were serving a third strike will meet the qualifying criteria.
I don't know that you're going to be with them.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Are you failing to understand my point deliberately or is
it just an accident.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
No, it's because we have found that under the previous
regime we had some minor lower level offenders being caught
up in the system. And this has always been about
going after those serious fires.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
And let me give you I'll give you an example
of a minor lower level offender. Okay, there's a chap
called Rana Peritomata who ended up being a third striker
because he murdered his girlfriend in twenty nineteen. Under your laws,
he would not be a third striker, he'd be a
second striker because his first strike offense, which was an
aggravated robbery, he was only sentenced to eight months home
d Nicole. That's not a light offense. That's massive. He
(03:52):
got eight months and your law wouldn't even give him
a first strike. Are you sure you want to do that?
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah? I am sure that we're going about this the
right way because what we've also introduced under this regime
is not only for the judges to be able to
look at manifestly are just and pull out the lower levels,
but also putting some not discretion, but the ability for
the judges to fit within the regime that we are
currently trying to apply, so that they don't please their
(04:20):
minimum sentences.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Why should our friend that an a peritomat who committed
an aggravated robbery not get a first strike for that.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
What we need to ensure is that those really low
level ones are not captured, but the more serious ones are.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Robber low level.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
This guy has committed an offense that fits the new criteria,
then he should absolutely be struck or struck for it.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
But he won't because laws strike.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Because he's already third served a third strike, he will
still be within that system. This is about an escalation, right,
This is about making sure that people are a accountable
for the actions that they have committed. But we still
can't make sure that the lower level ones are caught
up on it. So we've got to look at how
we direct or not direct, but how we outline what
(05:12):
the judges, what we expect of the judges in sentencing,
while still giving them the ability to make sure the
ones that just smack somebody's bottom that are not getting
twenty years in prison. So there's a fine line to
be had there and I think that we have made
it stricter, stronger. We're showing accountability to those to those
offenders and we're going to be looking after the victims.
(05:34):
But at the end of the day, we want to
make sure that those serious violence sexual offenders are locked
up and those bringing up you're.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Not doing that. That's my point and Nicole will have
to leave it there. Thank you for your time, appreciate
it as always. Nicole McKey, Associate Minister of Justice. For
more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to news talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.