Pitched as ACT's promise to make sure the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders "expect to face increasingly severe consequences", with strikes that escalate to no parole and maximum prison time.

The Policy: ACT Law and Order Policy — 2023 Election →

What it does:

• Reinstates the "three strikes" sentencing regime that the previous government repealed in 2022, fulfilling a commitment in the National-ACT coalition agreement. ACT lists Bringing back Three Strikes among its signature law-and-order wins.
• The revived law came into force on 17 June 2025 and covers 42 serious violent and sexual offences, including a new strangulation and suffocation offence.
• A first strike is a formal warning; at a second strike the offender serves the sentence with no parole; a third strike means the maximum penalty without parole. A murderer at a second or third strike faces a minimum non-parole period of 17 or 20 years.
• Unlike the original 2010 scheme, the new version adds qualifying sentence thresholds_Amendment_Act_2024) - a strike only counts where the sentence exceeds 12 months (first strike) or 24 months (second and third) - plus a wider "manifestly unjust" exception giving judges some discretion, and a limited discount for early guilty pleas to spare victims a trial.
• The Ministry of Justice estimated the regime would add roughly 649 more second-strikers and 88 more third-strikers over ten years, about 130 to 210 extra prisoners, at an annual cost to Corrections of between $15.6 million and $25.2 million.

The result: The promise is delivered: the bill passed its final reading in December 2024 with the votes of National, ACT and New Zealand First, received Royal assent on 17 December 2024, and took effect in June 2025. Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee, who steered the bill, said New Zealanders "want safer streets, safer homes, and a justice system that puts victims first", and the law-and-order lobby group the Sensible Sentencing Trust was among its loudest backers. It is, however, contested on the evidence. The New Zealand Law Society submitted that the Bill should not proceed, arguing it "will not significantly reduce crime rates" and will have only a minimal deterrent effect. The government's own Regulatory Impact Statement, prepared by the Ministry of Justice, warned of limited evidence the original scheme reduced serious crime and flagged a disproportionate impact on Māori. Labour's then justice spokesperson Duncan Webb called it "political posturing of the worst kind" with "little evidential backing", and Labour's Ginny Andersen argued measures such as alcohol and drug courts and the iwi panel Te Pae Oranga do more to cut reoffending by tackling the "root causes of crime". Neutrality note: this summary reports the parties' positions and the official equity data as stated by those sources; it does not endorse any claim about any ethnic group.

The impacts to watch:

• Equity effects: Pacific advocate Te'o Harry Fatu Toleafoa and others note that under the previous regime Māori and Pasifika made up more than half of all strikes, and the Ministry of Justice expects the reinstated law to fall hardest on Māori, Pasifika and young offenders.
• Prison capacity and cost: whether the modest projected rise in prisoner numbers stays within forecast, and what it adds to Corrections spending and muster pressure.
• Judicial discretion: how often courts use the broadened "manifestly unjust" exception, which will determine whether the regime bites harder or softer than the 2010 version.
• Deterrence test: with no New Zealand study showing the original law cut crime, whether reoffending among strike offenders actually falls under the revived scheme.