Garrett David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10905] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It is important to remember throughout this debate that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is unashamedly about reducing the number of victims and about public safety in general. Since the election four more people have died at the hands of persons who had this law been in place at the time they committed their crimes would have been in jail. That is not rhetoric. It is not spin. It is a simple fact. I heard someone insultingly say the other day when this subject came up in another forum that we cannot say that about the numbers we talked about in the initial phase because some of those victims might have died of diseases. As the Americans say “Puh-lease”. 
I have been involved in debates recently with a number of people on both sides of the argument—in fact Mr Lees-Galloway and I had a debate a week ago and a very civil affair it was too—but the most interesting one was probably a debate in Auckland 2 or 3 weeks ago with Professor Warren Brookbanks a respected academic at the University of Auckland and Dr Ekins who has published quite widely on this subject. Dr Brookbanks was good enough to agree several things in that debate. First he readily agreed that only in the tiny pool that is New Zealand are most academics opposed to this legislation. Professor Brookbanks acknowledged that in the United States opinion is about even on whether the “three strikes” laws in the 26 US states that have them have been effective. 
But he went further. Professor Brookbanks also agreed with me that the two phenomena I pointed out to him were in fact evidence of a deterrent effect. One of them was that of the prison population in California who are “strikers” about 60 percent are first-strikers about 30 percent are second-strikers and only about 10 percent are third-strikers. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that distribution indicated that although first-strikers were more numerous a much smaller number wished to go back for another go and a very much smaller number wished to go back for a third go. Secondly Professor Brookbanks agreed on the fact that prior to 1994 there was a net inflow of parolees into the state of California. That was the year of course that the “three strikes” law was enacted in California. Prior to 1994 parolees came from other states to California I presume because of the weather because it was a nice place to live and because of its lifestyle etc. Post-1994 there was a net outflow of parolees particularly among strikes offenders who got out after a second strike and quickly got across the border to Arizona or Washington state which do not have “three strikes” laws. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that was evidence of deterrence. 
Another thing that impresses me is my ongoing communication with a lobby group in California which I have referred to in the House before called Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes. Note that the name of the organisation has the word “Amend” not “Abolish”. I sent that organisation the original ACT version of this bill which was quite different from the version we are debating today. I have the comment on record: “David compared with what we’ve got here yours is wonderful.” I spoke to the president of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes a week or so ago a lady called Geri Silva and told her where things were at and what was happening. She again expressed great surprise that as she put it we do not have LWOP—life without parole—even for the really bad guys. When we visited Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes 3 years ago together with Tai Hobson the widower of Mary Hobson one of William Bell’s victims Geri could not believe that as she put it “this guy”—Bell—“was on the streets with 102 previous convictions”. So it is quite instructive that a left-wing lobby group seeks only to amend the law and that it would be delighted with the legislation we will be passing. The organisation does not seek to abolish the law because it can see that it is working. 
Another thing that is interesting and that has never been canvassed in this Chamber before to my knowledge is that the Americans have a system called propositions which we would call binding referenda. In fact the original “three strikes” law came into being in California through a proposition. But in 2004 there was an attempt to weaken California’s Act to something pretty close to what we have most notably in narrowing the focus down to what the state calls “serious violent felonies”. As I have said in other speeches the undoubted injustices in California have arisen from this grey category called “technical felony” and that is what has led to the cases that are much discussed of people going to jail for life for stealing golf clubs etc. A proposition was put on the ballot in 2004 to weaken California’s very wide law down to something very similar to what we have—and it was defeated. It was defeated most heavily in poor black counties. Rich liberals from San Francisco wanted it weakened because crime does not affect them. But poor black counties in Los Angeles rejected it by a country mile. I was reminded of that fact—that poor communities are those most affected—when I visited the Mangere Maori wardens a few weeks back and I did not have to finish what I was saying about crime affecting poor people worst. They knew it. I was a bit nervous about presenting the “three strikes” argument to these people but they were right on board with it. They thought it was a great idea. 
So this bill is indeed a victim-focused bill. It will at the very least reduce the number of victims through incapacitation; it cannot do otherwise. Aside from tragedies such as what happened to the corrections officer over the weekend—one of those who do that very challenging job on behalf of the rest of us—I cannot see any good reason why the deterrent effect that Professor Brookbanks acknowledges from the data overseas would not be replicated here and we know that the adverse effects such as going to jail for stealing a pizza or stealing golf clubs simply cannot happen here. I am disappointed that some who are in opposition to this bill—I do not mean the parliamentary Opposition but those in the community—are being frankly dishonest in still saying that under the law we are going to pass people can go to jail for life for stealing a chocolate bar when they must know if they have read the bill that that is simply untrue. 
ACT supports the bill; it was our idea in the first place. We believe very firmly and honestly that it will make a major change. I close by saying that of course we need to look at the causes of crime. I will take a later call and give someone else a chance to speak. But we do need to look at drug treatment. I heard a very interesting lecture this morning by an American judge about drug courts in California and what they have done. We have to start somewhere and we are starting by making this change of direction in saying to violent offenders that if they cannot learn from being told twice by a judge and by definition serving a lengthy period of imprisonment adding first and second strikes together then they have no place in the community. ACT makes no bones about that and we are unashamed of it. Thank you.