Garrett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Garrett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7232] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill as we have done from the beginning. Until the new-found rapprochement between Mr Cosgrove on the other side and me was made we were frequently at loggerheads. He mocked us on occasion and no doubt will again about what we were doing supporting bills like this one and whether we were not the party of freedom. I will not target Mr Cosgrove because he is being very nice and polite at the moment. 
But I will say that freedom is not the same as a word that is not heard much these days: licence. Freedom is the freedom to do what one wants to do with the huge caveat that it does not interfere with the rights of others. Licence is the right supposedly to do what one wants to do. But it comes with a disconcerting consequence which is that those who have their rights infringed can do what they like to another. That is called anarchy and nobody on any side of the House I do not believe supports that. We support this bill because people do not as speakers on all sides have said have the right to disturb people’s sleep drive them half mad or simply interfere with their enjoyment of their back garden on a summer’s night. Classical liberalism does not allow that and we do not support it. 
I also agree with Mr Cosgrove about the reluctance of judges to use the law that he sponsored and pushed through Parliament. Sadly judges’ reluctance to use the ambit of the law is all too common. That is one of the reasons why the “three strikes” bill which the ACT Party has sponsored and which now forms part of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is necessary. I will use the example of Andrew Peter McGlynn. He is currently facing his fourth recall—yes his fourth recall—from parole. Originally he committed murder 23 years ago. He was released from a life sentence after 9 years committed an aggravated robbery and was recalled. He was released again committed another aggravated robbery and was recalled. He was released again and assaulted a female. 
That man should and would have been banged up for 14 years after the second aggravated robbery on parole had there been a “three strikes” law at the time. Sadly the judges who dealt with him on those two occasions chose to give him sentences in the single figures cut down by the Sentencing Act that was passed by the previous Government. This man is articulate and intelligent and he has been able to fool the Parole Board not once not twice but three times. He is about to go back again. So I absolutely agree with Mr Cosgrove that the laws that we pass here are only part of the picture. Sometimes it is perfectly justified to blame the politicians but not always. The judges must use what they are given by us and if they do not do that in my view that reflects very badly on the judiciary. This man as I have said is set again for recall after breaching parole conditions for a fourth time. 
I will also speak briefly about Darien Fenton’s contribution in which she said that we may have to come back here in a year because the bill we are debating tonight may not achieve its aims. That is perfectly true but there is nothing unique about that. Taxation law is amended constantly for the very good reason that loopholes are found by lawyers who are paid a great deal more than I ever was as a lawyer. Those loopholes are closed and they find new ones. Parliament then has to close those loopholes and so on. That is why the Income Tax Act and similar legislation gets fatter and fatter by the year. It was ever so and sadly it will always be so. 
That is no reason to denigrate what we are doing here tonight. No doubt there will be clever lawyers—so-called civil liberties lawyers—who will take on these cases and find loopholes. We may well be back here next year. If we are we will support whatever the Government proposes if it appears to be a sensible response to those loopholes. Experience shows that in the case of both the boy-racer problem and the gangs constant enforcement of the law by the police and constant proper application of the law by the judges does work. 
We talked briefly about the boy-racer thing in the last sitting week. I observed that at that time the problem had apparently abated somewhat in South Auckland. Mr Tau Henare has observed that it has moved to West Auckland. That is what happens. It is similar with gangs. I am reliably informed that when the police relentlessly applied the law in Wanganui and turned over as they say gang cars whenever they got the chance and there was reasonable cause to do so gang crime went down. So it does work. It is a combination of effort by the police and by the judiciary. 
As I have said the boy-racer problem subsides when the law is enforced. There will be loopholes no doubt that will be uncovered and created by clever lawyers who somehow think their vocation in life is protecting those who make other people’s lives a misery. If we need to we will come back here next year the year after that and the year after that to plug those loopholes just as we do with tax law. Thank you.