Garrett David: General Debate 
Garrett David: General Debate 
[Volume:652;Page:1414] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The National Government has talked about its 100 days of action which is coming towards its final phase. Part of the 100-day plan is the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which will be introduced later today and part of that bill is ACT’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy. I stand to speak on this issue in this debate even though I will speak again later because I want to give members the benefit of the doubt. I have heard all sorts of comments from both sides of the House I am afraid I must say that the bill is a terrible idea because shoplifters could go to jail for 25 years. I heard the Prime Minister say that during the election campaign. I know that he now understands that that is incorrect. I want to leave members in no doubt about what this bill will do so that they cannot make that excuse to their constituents. 
I raise the matter of constituents because the people whom I mix with are actually funnily enough mostly Labour-voter types. People at the Kaukapakapa pub where I have a beer on the way home most days—out the back there among the smokers although I do not smoke—ask me: “Why are you giving them three strikes? One’s enough.” That demonstrates how out of touch with its core constituency the Labour Government became. People do not want three strikes; they want one. Those are the people who used to be Labour’s constituency. 
New Zealanders believe in fairness. No one wants to see an Act that locks up people for 25 years without giving them a chance. I certainly do not and I do not think anyone in the House does. The bill that will be introduced later today does not do that. I have heard references to systems in California from the usual suspects like Kim Workman Peter Williams QC and all the other bleeding-heart liberals and those people are just dishonest. They are either dishonest or they have not read the bill. There are only two choices. What we have drafted is not—I repeat not—California’s bill nor anything like it. I went to California in 2007 specifically to find out whether it was indeed possible for people to go to jail for life for shop-theft and whether it was possible to prevent that from happening. That is what we have done. When I say “we” I should say that I was the original drafter of the bill. It has now been worked on under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice but the essentials are all still there. The essentials are that it is simply impossible for someone to go to jail for life for shoplifting theft of another kind or burglary. I will say that again: it is simply impossible the way this bill is drafted for anyone to go to jail for 25 years to life imprisonment for theft burglary car conversion or any offence like that. It is impossible. Any member who stands up later in the debate to say it is possible simply has not read the bill or he or she is giving the alternative which we are not allowed to say in the House. 
The reason it is impossible is simple. The bill lists a number of serious violent offences. Those are the strike offences or what are now called qualifying offences. They are serious offences of violence. They are listed in the schedule of the bill—in I think section 84A—which is to be added. Those are the only offences for which a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment can be imposed. I will say it a third time. No one can go to jail for 25 years for theft car conversion or burglary. I am saying it three times because I have already heard it claimed 10 times on the radio and on the telly that that is possible. That simply is not true. The way the bill is drafted makes that impossible. 
Here is how it will work. One of the serious offences listed in the bill is aggravated robbery a serious violent offence that is all too common. We saw the results of one such offence in the dreadful tragedy concerning Navtej Singh in South Auckland. In that situation some mongrel armed with a gun went into a liquor store and now someone is dead. Well let us leave the death out of it. If that was just an armed robbery and I should not say “just an armed robbery” and no one had died— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt but the member’s time has expired.