Garrett David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10927] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I am very glad to see that Grant Robertson is with us. I thought there were a couple of good contributions from the other side of the Chamber: one was from Mr Robertson and one was from Mr Hipkins. Mr Hipkins made a fairly passionate contribution saying several times that the bill would not work. But Mr Robertson was honest enough to admit that crime has in fact dropped dramatically in California since 1994. He also observed quite correctly that the greatest decline in the US has been in New York. He also observed correctly that New York is not just— 
Chris Hipkins 
: It doesn’t have “three strikes”. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: The member should stifle himself for a second. Mr Robertson also observed that New York is not a “three strikes” state but what he did not say—and perhaps he does not know; I will assume that may be the case—is that New York has adopted what is known as zero-tolerance policing also known as Broken Windows and it has also taken a twofold approach: what is called the front end zero-tolerance policing and sentence enhancement. “Three strikes” is an example of a sentence-enhancing Act. New York state also has sentence enhancement but it is different from “three strikes”. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Robertson to do the research and he will find that that is correct. It is a fairly complicated system but in simple terms the first time—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sure Mr Robertson can do it. The first time the person is given a sentence. The second time if I have it correct the tariff as it is called in the trade is doubled. The third time it is tripled. I am pretty sure that is how it works roughly. It is no surprise really that New York has seen the greatest drop in crime across the US because it attacked the problem from both ends. What that has resulted in is New York City turning in 15 years from one of the most dangerous cities in the US as measured by homicides and attacks to one of the safest. 
It is also no coincidence that of the three states in the United States that have had the greatest reductions in crime New York is the top one closely followed by California closely followed by Georgia. Georgia and California are the two of the 26 US states that have “three strikes” laws that use them the most. I will try to put this case to Mr Hipkins and I hope he will give it a fair hearing. 
I am not afraid to say that I do not know for sure that this bill will have the dramatic effect that I believe the legislation has had in California because I am not God and I do not have a crystal ball. But let us look at it like this. Mr Robertson has been gracious enough to admit that there has in fact been a massive drop in crime in that state. That is interesting because the Rev. Givens—Ms Dalziel was trying to recall his name—is on record as saying: “We have seen no reduction in any category of crime whatsoever.” If the Rev. Givens was correctly quoted on TV3 I am sorry but there is only one conclusion and that is that he is lying. As Mr Robertson says it is a simple fact that the reduction has occurred. So how has this occurred? Why has there been this great reduction if it is not— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I refer you to a ruling that the Speaker made this afternoon in respect of a Minister who made a similar accusation but in less colourful language against an individual when he used the words I think “manufacturing” something. The Speaker ruled that out of order and I think it took two occasions to get the Minister to reword his reply. You have before you now an accusation against an individual outside this place who is accused of lying. I invite you to consider the Speaker’s ruling because he ruled this afternoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: My understanding would be—and the member raises an interesting point—that what is permissible in a question that a Minister has to answer or respond to is entirely different from what can occur in debate. That would be my interpretation. The member is correct in that the Speaker did say that today but this would not be the first time certainly in the Committee of the whole House that the kind of accusation that has just been levelled has been made. I am trying to recall any time in the past that a member has been pulled up in that context. It is a debating point and it is a rather robust one. The member ought to be quite conscious of what he is saying and he will be held to account for it outside this Chamber. That is the rule around that issue. Thank you— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have finished that point of order. Does the member have another one? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes I do. I would argue—and we will move on I am sure—that if you reflect on what Speaker Smith said this afternoon he was not confining his ruling to question time; he was making a more general ruling about a member of Parliament who makes an accusation. The one this afternoon was relatively mild compared with what we have heard just now. He was very clear that he felt that was grossly unparliamentary and he required the member to readjust his tone in what he was saying. I could be corrected but I do not recall the Speaker’s remarks being confined to a Minister in question time. I do not think he even alluded to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will finish it with this point: the Speaker at the time was referring to questions and to supplementary questions that were being asked. This is a debating chamber and members who speak in here can be held to account by the media and the public for what they actually say. There is a difference in the state of the arena for what is occurring now compared with question time. The member ought to be conscious of his responsibility. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Robertson has rightly acknowledged that the reduction has occurred so why did that happen? There has been a variety of explanations for the precipitate drop in crime. One of the most common of course is unemployment. Before I move off the point Ms Dalziel I think it was said that crime was already dropping prior to 1994. That is not correct and again it is simply a matter of fact that if one looks at the statistics in California one sees that violent crime peaked in 1993. That fact will become relevant in a second. The most common explanation for the drop is unemployment and economic conditions. That is clearly not so and I will say why. Obviously there have been fluctuations in California’s economy since 1994 as there have been all over the world. But the track has been consistently down all the time since 1994. The most recent data on unemployment in that state for the last quarter of 2009 shows that unemployment was 16 percent which is more than twice as high as it has ever reached in New Zealand. Violent crime is still tracking down. So much for that argument! 
One of the more colourful arguments has been the free availability of abortions after 1973. When one thinks about it at first it has some kind of logic. The logic is something like this: the poor people who are more likely to be criminal and produce criminals could after 1973 have abortions. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That was written in one book; it was just a suggestion. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No it is argued a lot by the left. When one first hears it one thinks that it makes some kind of weird sense. But then it has a major hole in it. As any member opposite with any knowledge of criminology would be aware the prime crime-committing years are late teens to late 20s. So if that theory were correct we should have seen a massive plummet in crime about 20 years after 1973. Instead as I have said crime peaked in the state of California in 1993. So not only was there no decline; the exact opposite of what that theory predicts happened. 
We will switch away from law because it is unfair to Mr Cosgrove who does not have a law degree and we will talk the language of psychology. What psychologists say is that one changes something in an experiment—they call that the independent variable—and then the thing one measures is the dependent variable. In that way one finds out whether the independent variable whether it be electric shocks or rewards of food changes behaviour. The only independent variable that I am aware of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will give a further call to Mr Garrett but I remind him that we are on Part 2 and he should focus on that. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I have almost finished Mr Chair. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We are very happy for this. We want it on the record. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: That is fine. The only independent variable that I am aware of that altered not just in California but right across the US in the early 1990s was a U-turn and a focus on zero-tolerance policing and/or sentence enhancement. So until someone comes up with a better theory than unemployment or ready availability of abortions—or perhaps the phases of the sun—or suggests something better then logic suggests to me that this is probably the cause. I stand proved to be wrong. No one really knows and will not know for 6 to 10 years. As Mr Cosgrove said I have been rather surprised to hear predictions that the first third-striker will be up in 5 to 7 years. So it will take at least that long for us to know. But logic tells me that in the absence of a better explanation the change of direction in California and other states is the reason.