Garrett David: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:509] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to respond firstly to the Hon Phil Goff because before the lunch break he and his colleague the Hon Annette King accused me of “electoral fraud” which is fairly close to that forbidden “l” word. It certainly needs a response and I will give it now. I have learnt that if not the “l” word then certainly looseness with the truth is the case around here. 
I did not speak the day after the election as the Hon Phil Goff said; I think it was a week after it. The reason for my comment about an impact being felt in 15 or 20 years was that I spent considerable time drafting the draft three strikes bill to avoid the injustices that have occurred in similar legislation in California and elsewhere. I went there last year specifically to look at what had been done in that state and in other states and to find out firstly if it was true that people were going to jail for life or 25 years for shoplifting burglary or whatever and secondly if it was true to find out why. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who paid for that trip? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I did—and the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I thank the member for reminding me. I am told that to accuse me of representing the Sensible Sentencing Trust in this House is improper but I will respond to it anyway. I am an ACT MP. I am not the MP for sensible sentencing as I think the Hon Phil Goff described me. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I thought legally you were their representative. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I am a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust yes and quite proud of it. 
In California I found that the law in that state had caused injustice and I bent over backwards to draft a law that would avoid any possibility of that happening here. In the draft bill that will be referred to the select committee under our agreement with National it is simply impossible for somebody to go to jail for life for shoplifting. However right at the end of the campaign it was pointed out to me that I had gone a bit too far and had made the bill a bit too liberal. It was explained to me and I had not actually worked it out myself before that the reason for the comment about the impact being felt in 15 years was that if the three strikes bill was passed tomorrow and the day after that somebody became a one-striker—let us say for an aggravated robbery—under current law that person would get let us say 7 or 8 years in jail. If that person came out 7 years hence and did it again the day after that then he or she would get another 7 years or perhaps 10 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You never told the people this before the election though did you? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No I say to Mr Cosgrove; I had not worked it out. I had been too liberal in trying to avoid the unjust consequences that have happened in California. The reason for my comment about an impact being felt in 15 years was that the first three-striker would not in fact come before the courts for 15 years but he or she would have spent the previous 15 years in jail. To that extent that comment is correct but it was an attempt to make the bill more liberal that caused it. 
I commend both the Hon Phil Goff because he is right and the previous Labour Government. A lot of what the Labour Government did—prior to 2002 anyway—was excellent stuff and that is a good reason for me to support our returning to the status quo Bail Act of 2000. The Labour Government lost it a bit after 2002 but prior to 2000 it did a lot of good things. I should also mention that during the lunch break one of the Labour members asked me whether I was planning to be National’s poodle in this House. I have been called all sorts of things and even compared to certain breeds of dogs but a poodle is not one of them so the answer to that question is no. I commend the Labour Party for supporting the bill although as Mr Power said it could hardly have done otherwise. 
Finally I will make a comment about the Hon Annette King— 
Hon Annette King 
: Be nice. Be sweet. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —certainly—who made a comment about the decision in  
R v Hines 
 and the changes made in 2007. As I understand our constitutional arrangements it is not for Parliament to follow what a judge has done not even the most august judges in New Zealand. Under our constitutional arrangements Parliament is sovereign. It is not for Parliament to say that as the Court of Appeal has come out with a decision Parliament had better change the law—the reverse is the case. Parliament is supposed to lead the courts. Having said that I can do nothing other than congratulate the Labour Party on supporting the bill. I commend the bill to the House and may the House continue to pass it with the most possible haste.