Garrett David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Garrett David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8896] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Some have said that the Government had a relaxed first year free of fundamental reforms and that the real work begins now. I would like to at least partially dispute that. In my specialist area of law and order the change in Government has brought with it a major change of attitude. In the past year there has been a renewed focus on getting tough on our worst offenders on cracking down on criminal gangs and on looking after victims rather than paying lip-service to their rights. The ACT Party has played a key role in this. Without our input and support much of this could not have happened. 
The Prime Minister in his speech talked about the need for sensible Government spending to help grow the economy. The key to growing the economy and catching up to Australia is to allow the private sector to get on with the job free of excessively high taxation free of senseless red tape and free of crime. A firm law and order policy is not just sensible social policy; it is good economic policy too. If we practise zero tolerance on crime we reduce the cost of crime. A safer society is more productive and everyone will be better off. Locking up some people for longer will cost the Government a bit more but this is more than offset by the reduced cost to the private sector. 
A Treasury report  
Estimating the Costs of Crime in New Zealand 
2003/04 
 is an excellent piece of research and I wish such research were produced more often. The first few sentences of the abstract to that article are most revealing: “We estimate that the total costs of crime in New Zealand in 2003/04 amounted to $9.1 billion. Of this the private sector incurred $7 billion in costs and the public sector $2.1 billion.” It is easy to see that the costs of crime fall primarily on the private sector. The cost of dealing with offenders—processing them sentencing them and locking them up—is a fraction in fact about a quarter of what it costs the private sector. 
Crime costs the private sector $7 billion a year and 80 percent of the cost Treasury calculates is the physical and emotional effect of crime on the victims. It comes in their health costs their emotional costs and the impact on their way of life and also on lost output. I am not talking about burglary or theft; I am talking about serious violent crime. I quote again from the abstract: “Offences against private property are the most common crimes but offences against the person are the most costly accounting for 45% of the total estimated costs of crime.” Crimes against the person include serious violence sexual offences and aggravated robbery—all soon to be covered by the “three strikes” law recently announced. 
It is crucial that we continue to reduce crime in all its forms. The social and economic costs of not doing so are painfully obvious. If we go soft on crime the nation loses at least $74 million a year that could be better spent elsewhere. Is it economically speaking worth raising the costs of the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice a little to reduce the burden on the productive sector? Absolutely! Morally speaking is it worth spending more to punish the worst offenders and prevent them from creating more victims? There is no question. The “three strikes” legislation will lock our worst criminals away for much longer. When they are in prison they are not out on the streets reoffending. Meanwhile the deterrent effect of the policy will stop others from committing more crimes. Some claim that crime is an irrational behaviour. Well overseas experience shows that a law like this causes people to think before they act. 
The Government has increased the number of police on the beat and is paying greater attention to both ends of the offending scale. It has got tough on gangs and drug dealers and made common-sense decisions regarding double-bunking and prison management. Keeping our citizens safe is the most important function that a Government can undertake. ACT has always recognised this. It is in our constitution very prominently. No better example of our impact in this Parliament can be found than in the “three strikes” policy. [ 
Interruption 
] Sir Roger pointed that out to me I say to that member over there. ACT campaigned for “three strikes” for many years and I am pleased to say that I could play a part in making this policy a reality. For too long successive Governments have given our worst criminals too easy a ride. That ride is shortly to be abruptly closed. Gone are the days of countless chances. We owe the victims of violent crime a far better deal than we have provided them up until now. 
However criminal apologists are spreading myths about the “three strikes” policy. Peter Williams QC has been painting a world for us where scores of mentally ill and homeless people are filling our prisons beyond overflowing. If he spent more time reading the legislation and less time reading Charles Dickens he would realise as most people already do that the “three strikes” policy targets the worst of the worst. Loitering or pickpocketing will not be found anywhere in the list of 36 offences that constitute a strike. I challenge Mr Williams and his ilk to explain why a three-time violent offender should not get 14 years for kidnapping 20 years for rape or life without parole for the most serious cases of murder. I wish him luck; he will need it. 
Meanwhile the eternally confused Mr Kim Workman first claimed that the “three strikes” policy would cause the prison population to triple. Similarly outlandish claims were made in California. When challenged Mr Workman quickly revised his claim and said the increase would be 3000 not a tripling. The reality is that in the first 5 years an estimated 56 of our worst criminals would be affected by the “three strikes” policy. This rises to 142 after 10 years 288 after 20 years and 433 after 30 years which is just over 10 percent of Mr Workman’s revised figure. One can expect the actual figures to be lower. If results from overseas are anything to go by we can expect a substantial deterrent effect. 
For those who blindly claim there is no such thing from laws like this there is plenty of material out there to prove otherwise. I draw attention to two of those the first being the summer 2007  
Journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice 
. It states: “The number of third strikers in California declined every year from 1997 to 2003.” Members should note those dates. In 1997 there was a plummet in the numbers 3 years after the law was introduced. A 1999 FBI study also shows that since the “three strikes” policy was implemented in 1994 overall crime in California decreased by 27 percent and violent crime decreased by more than 50 percent. It is true that the “three strikes” policy will imprison more people and the costs to the Government will modestly increase but because of deterrents this initial cost has been shown to be temporary. 
I am proud as my ACT colleagues are to have played a key part in this renewed focus on making and keeping New Zealand safe. It has been a good first year for this Government but there is much more left to do. 
Moana Mackey 
: What about the link with unemployment and crime? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I tell the member that we had low unemployment under the previous Labour Government. Did violent crime decrease as the theory would have it? No it kept rising. 
We most certainly can create a low-tax high-growth economy that leaves no one behind. Our next target zero tolerance on crime has a crucial role to play in that and I look forward to playing my part in this process. Thank you.