Garrett David: General Debate 
Garrett David: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:5035] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Just about a week has gone by since the Chief Justice made suggestions to the executive—the members on my left—on what it might wish to consider with regard to penal policy. Two issues have been raised following the Chief Justice’s statements. The first issue is the constitutional issue which has been relatively well canvassed. The second issue is the call from a number of people to address the points that she raised. 
I will not spend much time on the constitutional issue as it has been discussed at some length except to say that there are ways and means for the Chief Justice—or indeed any judge—to communicate her views to the executive. She can have a quiet word in the ear of the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice. She well knows the convention in that regard. I have personal views as I am sure does every member of the House on what should properly happen to the odious Mr Weatherston found guilty of murder today. But I will not give my opinion here in the House because that would be an improper interference in the role of the judiciary. I will say no more than that. 
I wish to spend my time doing what commentators have suggested so I will talk about the issues raised by the Chief Justice. She and members of the liberal commentariat have taken as a starting place the supposed axiom that imprisonment does not work. I wish to examine that a bit. Imprisonment has no effect on crime—that I think is what Dame Sian said. Data from US states since 1994 tell us a very different story. The United States because of its federal system and there being 50 different legal systems in 50 different political regimes gives us an opportunity to compare various strategies in anything and in respect of penal policy a wide range of strategies have been followed across the United States in the past 15 years. 
I digress for just a second to note with some sadness that members of the Law Society presenting a submission to the Law and Order Committee on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill seemed unaware that New York state does not have a “three strikes” law. The submitter referred to New York state as having had some early apparently positive effects from a “three strikes” law. New York state is not one of the “three strikes” states. It has followed a more punitive course at the front end of offending. New York is the home of what has become known as zero tolerance or the “fixing broken windows” policy. It has also what is known in the US as sentence enhancement measures of which “three strikes” is the most well known but it is not primarily a sentence enhancement state. 
California of 26 US states introduced “three strikes” laws in 1994 and the result has been dramatic. In that time homicide and robbery rates have reduced in that state by 50 percent and the incidence of house burglary has reduced by 60 percent. At the same time the population of the state has increased some 25 percent. My calculations show that a 50 percent reduction in offending numbers coupled with a 25 percent increase in population equates to a 62.5 percent decrease in homicide. That is absolutely massive; it is absolutely massive. 
It has been very interesting during the progress of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill thus far to see the same hysterical exaggerations thrown about in this country with regard to supposed doubling or tripling of prison numbers and huge increases in costs. I say it has been interesting because exactly the same thing happened in California. There were predictions of a tripling of the prison population and costs of $100 million extra. What has occurred in reality is a 20 percent-ish increase in the early days and it is now about 5 percent greater.