Garrett David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Garrett David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1428] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Before I begin my speech I will touch on Mr Cosgrove’s jibes across the House. His remark about the Act as the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will become not having full effect for 15 years was made after Mr Kim Workman one of the spokespeople and apparatchiks—a far more appropriate word for them—claimed on the radio that it would double the prison population within 2 years. That was where that remark came from. 
We know that this bill will work because right now there are 77 murderers in jail who committed a murder at a time when they had three or more violent offences under their belt—77 people. That is more than half of the number of members of this House. It is not half of the number of members here today and in fact there probably are not 77 in the House right now. But if this House were full for question time the number would be over half that of the House—77 murderers. Their victims would be alive today if at the time they were killed this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simple arithmetic. I notice there is silence from the other side. It is simple arithmetic; we know that it will work. 
We know that right now there are thousands of violent offenders out in the community who have not three but dozens of violent convictions. Mr Anderton talked about William Bell; he had 102 convictions when he killed three people at the Panmure RSA—102 convictions. The late unlamented—at least by me—Antonie Ronnie Dixon had 160 convictions at the time he killed James Te Aute. James Te Aute was the kind of person those people on the other side of the House are supposed to be concerned about—a Maori man from South Auckland who was simply down at a gas station—but that mongrel killed him. Antonie Dixon had had 160 previous convictions. We know from bitter experience that those 77 murderers who are in jail right now will be joined by others—we know it. 
What does this law do? Before talking about what this law will do I want briefly again—because I am sick of hearing the lies on the radio from the fellow travellers of those members across the other side— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you probably know what I am going to say. That comment was totally unparliamentary and the member should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Sure. I tell the member he cannot use the word “lies”. I ask him to withdraw that comment please and apologise. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Deputy Speaker but I was referring to fellow travellers rather than— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. When I have ruled from the Chair the member must not question the ruling. The member apologises and withdraws the comment end of story. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: We hear from commentators—the familiar usual suspects—that under this legislation people can go to jail for 25 years or for life for shoplifting; stealing a chocolate bar is one of the favourite examples they use. That simply cannot happen. I said it an hour or two ago and I will say it again because I am sick of hearing wrong statements. It simply cannot happen because the bill defines what the offences are. Strike offences as we called them are now called serious offences. There are also qualifying offences—they are all listed there. The list does not include shoplifting theft burglary or car conversion; the Californian situation cannot happen here. 
There are many injustices in California. I went there 2 years ago to work out how to get around the situation and to avoid that happening here. There are some terrible stories. A Mexican chap with two strikes to his name—I do not know what they were for; I suppose I should have found out—sat a driving test for his cousin who was illiterate in English. Unfortunately for him in California that was what they call a technical felony. We do not have such a thing or anything else with a different name. These Californian horror stories cannot happen here. 
So how would the bill work? I started to explain in a speech an hour or so ago and I will finish what I was saying. If this bill were passed tomorrow and someone committed aggravated robbery the following day—an offence attracting a maximum penalty of 14 years jail—that man and it is usually men or almost always would receive a sentence of 7 or 8 years. Depending on what my colleagues in the National Party do with the parole provisions in relation to serving one-third or two-thirds of a sentence he would be out again in 3 4 or 5 years on parole. But let us say that he commits another aggravated robbery the next day despite the warning he has been given by the judge. This time because of the way in which the bill has been drafted he might say get 12 years. This time there would be no parole and he would get another warning from the judge—a final warning. Kiwis are fair people; we do not want people to have no chances. This time he will get 12 years and he will serve 12 years. But if “Mr Scumbag” comes out of prison and commits another such offence again he will go away for a sentence of 25 years to life. That is it. There is nothing magical or unfair about it. 
Members opposite should go out there and talk to their constituents. They have forgotten what they are like. I talk to them most evenings when I drop by for a beer on the way home. They say it is a great idea. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You didn’t tell people that before the election. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Cosgrove—and Mr Anderton for that matter—made selective references from the regulatory impact statement or “RIS” as I believe it is called. The explanatory note states: “A study on the wide-sweeping Californian three-strike laws did find a statistically significant deterrent effect”—and I will not omit the next bit—“but the high cost of that deterrent effect needs to be weighed against the finding that almost all crime was committed by offenders who had not received strikes.” So there hidden away on page 10 of the explanatory note is an indication that there is a deterrent effect. There is a big cost—yes there is. No one is pushing the California model. This is not the “California Three-Strikes Bill”. If people like to use computer parlance it is “Three Strikes 2.0”. It is an improvement of an idea that emanated from America. 
This Government thankfully understands that the old television programme  
Yes Minister 
 was in fact a comedy and not a documentary. Officials do not run the Government. They might be continuing to try but they do not run the Government. 
I see that in the regulatory impact statement there is talk of the impact on Maori. That is quite correct. It states that Maori are more likely than other ethnic groupings to be convicted of violent offences. That is true but there is a little half-truth there. Maori are also much more likely to be affected by those offences. James Te Aute was going about his lawful business at a gas station in South Auckland and a white man Antonie Dixon shot him with a machine gun. Maori people are more likely to be affected by crime than I am. I am a middle-aged white man I live out in the country and I have got lots of insurance. If I get burgled it does not matter too much. But the people the Opposition supposedly represents are the ones who are disproportionately affected by crime. It is not just about offenders; it is about victims as well. We will hear the bleat from the John Mintos the Peter Williamses and the Kim Workmans but they will be being dishonest. 
A lot of people talk about rehabilitation. Who could be against rehabilitation? In research I discovered that Singapore has a somewhat similar provision. In Singapore if you are convicted of a strike offence— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No don’t bring the Speaker into it. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —which by definition is a long sentence you are given psychological and psychometric testing to find out what might be wrong with you in the mental health sense and what you are good at. Then the mental health issues or whatever issues there are are addressed. Let us say it is decided that you would be a good mechanic; you are then trained as a mechanic. So after 10 years 8 years or whatever you come out as a trained mechanic having had your “issues” as they say these days addressed. If you commit another strike offence— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Look the member knows that he cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. Every time he uses the word “you” he is referring to the Speaker or presiding officer at the time. The member should talk about “somebody” or speak in the third person but he should not use the word “you” please. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: My apologies Mr Deputy Speaker. If that person after release commits a second strike offence in Singapore he will go back and get special treatment. Oh I was hoping for a poignant interjection! No it is not the rotan or anything else. The authorities have another look at the person and try to find out what else they can do to make that person a decent citizen. So they try harder. They put the person in a special stream and give the person more attention. If that person comes out again and commits another crime that is it—goodbye There are no questions. I support that. It will be costly but I support trying to stop people from becoming three-strikers. Nobody wants that. I do not want that. What sensible person would want people to be locked up for 25 years or for life? The aim is to get felons to see where they are going to decide they do not want to spend from 25 years to a lifetime in jail and to change their ways. I am all for rehabilitation if it can work but this bill is designed to protect people and we know it will work because of the 77 in jail now.