Blog | ACT New Zealand

Posted on Tuesday, 13 April, 2010 - 09:45 by David Garrett

When somebody gets a simple fact terribly wrong in the first paragraph, is it worth reading the rest of the article?

This is the challenge I faced when opening up this morning’s Herald. Tapu Misa has written a piece on Three Strikes and the causes of violent crime, in which she talks about the “65 recorded homicides” in 2009. 65 homicides is a tragic figure. Even more tragic is the real number – 134. The former is the number of murders only.

So what is to blame for this? Misa answers this with a question of her own: “Is it too simplistic or criminal-excusing namby-pambyism to point to the corresponding rise in joblessness last year?”

It’s a question one would ask only if one looks at 2009 in isolation, as Misa did. The bigger picture is much different. The unemployment figures for much of the last decade were dropping. At the same time, violent crime increased. Indeed 2007 saw the decade’s biggest jump in violent crime coincide with its lowest unemployment rate.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, California’s unemployment rate has skyrocketed – and yet violent crime continues to drop. In fact, tellingly, a fifty percent drop in violent crime has ‘coincided’ with the implementation of their Three Strikes law.

Later in her piece Misa states that “we all want our most vicious criminals locked up for as long as it takes to keep us safe”. Perhaps the editor took out the part where she said “except for me”. If Misa was sincere in this she would throw her support behind Three Strikes. The policy does precisely what she claims to want: longer sentences for repeat violent offenders. And contrary to her concerns, it still targets the “worst of the worst”. Robberies, assaults, sexual offences and (all types of) homicides are the worst violent crimes.

If employment was the magic bullet some people claim it to be, we should have seen a sharp drop in these offences from 2000. Instead, a decade of soft law and order policies from Labour has seen an abundance of violent crime and a lack of faith in the justice system.

Three Strikes addresses both problems. Our worst criminals will be punished properly, our streets will be safer, and many possible offenders will be deterred from destroying the lives of the innocent.

It’s not a magic bullet, but it will reduce violent crime. No amount of selective research and inaccurate figures will ever prove otherwise.

"Three Strikes" Plus Zero Tolerance A Winner

Posted on Monday, 15 March, 2010 - 12:17 by David Garrett

I had an interesting meeting with Police Association President Greg O’Connor the other day. The purpose of the meeting was two fold: to update Greg on the final version of ”three strikes”; and secondly for me to get some feedback from the Police regarding the issue of possibly treating assaults on police more seriously.

We ended up having a wide ranging discussion – all the way from the Arthur Alan Thomas case forty years ago and its aftermath, to different strategies tried in the US for curbing crime. I like to think we both learned something – I certainly found Greg to be very well informed and willing to listen.

We both agreed that: 1) crime had peaked in the US in the early 1990’s; and 2) that thereafter it had plummeted, both in “three strikes” states and those that had used other approaches. I was aware that New York – a non three strikes state – had experienced a slightly greater drop in crime than California, which is of course the home of what the Americans call the “three strikes movement.”

“Three strikes” type laws are what experts call “sentence enhancement” – laws which, when certain criteria are met, impose a greater penalty than would otherwise have been the case for a particular offence. Such “enhancements” include sentences without parole – such as at second and third strike in our proposed law – to an automatic doubling of judge given sentences, and a myriad of options in between including so called “hard time”.

That is tackling crime at the sentencing end. The other widely used approach is “front end”, where the focus is on certain apprehension and punishment, rather than enhanced sentencing. Zero tolerance policing, aka “broken windows” is the epitome of the front end approach, and is synonymous with New York State under Governor Giuliani and Police Chief Bratton.

I was interested to learn that New York has changed its policies at both the “front end” – so called minor crime is no longer ignored – and with regard to sentence enhancement. Interestingly, where resources - such as prison beds – force a choice of one or the other, the New York approach is to let minor offenders out earlier if necessary so the certainty of imprisonment following conviction – even for a short time – remains possible.

This is consistent with psychological studies which show that to be effective, punishment must be 1) certain; 2) immediate; and 3) proportionate. New York seems to show that if imprisonment is inevitable upon conviction, people will avoid actions which bring that consequence.

The lesson is clear, and one which perhaps all sides of the debate on reducing crime can agree: there is no one silver bullet. A zero tolerance approach to policing along with sentence enhancement for those who will not learn works best. Certainly better than the “interventions” we have been pursuing without effect for more than 20 years.

Awesome Experience With Mangere Maori Wardens

Posted on Monday, 15 March, 2010 - 12:43 by David Garrett

The word “awesome” has become totally meaningless; as a friend has observed, it is just as likely to be the response one gets when paying for a newspaper, as when confronted with a view of Milford Sound. Yesterday, Mike and I had an experience with Maori Wardens in Mangere which was truly “awesome” in the correct sense of “inspiring awe or wonder.”

The reason for our visit was to explain the “three strikes” policy shorn of all media and opposition misinformation, and to take a first hand look at the Wardens’ work. After receiving a very warm Maori welcome into their offices, I was asked to talk about the meaning and effect of “three strikes”, and what it meant for their communities. I confess that with some hesitation as to how I would be received, I told them that contrary to media spin, it was their communities who were most likely to be affected by crime – both violent and property – than the nice areas of the North Shore I used to live in before moving out to the country. I was immediately greeted by nodding heads all around.

I then asked one of the volunteers – all the Wardens are volunteers – if she had house and contents insurance. She knew exactly where I was going with the question, and sadly told us that her house had burned down last year and because she did not have insurance, she lost everything. Several others then told of house burglaries which were disasters for the victims because they were uninsured. Crime certainly does impact most heavily on those least able to afford its effects, and the people who live in poorer communities well understand that.

We were then totally blown away by a couple of stories from individual wardens, one of them the woman who had suffered the house fire. She is on the DPB, but now that her one child is at school, she prefers to spend her days volunteering with the Wardens rather than watching TV at home, which she is legally quite entitled to do. If that wasn’t inspiring enough, a quietly spoken young woman told us that she was volunteering with the Wardens to enhance her chances of joining the Police, which was her dream. The kicker was that her family were all – with the exception of her nana – “involved in criminal stuff” and derided her for what she wanted to do.

She said that her time at home was mostly spent in her room - to avoid taunts from the criminal members of her family – and so she spent as much time as possible with the Wardens. If helping provide a role model alternative whanau to such people was the Wardens’ only function, that would be enough. But the Wardens do much more. After our discussion, we accompanied them on their morning “beat” through the Mangere town centre. It was a wonderful experience.

Everywhere they went, the wardens were greeted as friends, and when I was introduced I was given at worst a polite, and usually an enthusiastic hearing. It was fascinating that I never had to finish my spiel about crime affecting their communities most; they all knew it, and recognised that the “interventions” so beloved of the socialists were not working, and had actually made the problem worse. We were asked to come back, and we will. The leader of the Wardens told us somewhat wistfully that the only time they usually saw politicians was at election time – even though the office of the Member for Mangere was in line of sight of the Wardens’ office. I intend to break that stereotype.

A visit to the old school

Posted on Monday, 15 March, 2010 - 12:15 by David Garrett

Last week I visited my old school, Campion College in Gisborne. The purpose of my visit was to talk to the students about life as an MP, the political process, and to interview students who wished to be considered for selection as a member of the Youth Parliament to be held over two days in July. I had approached the visit with some trepidation; my memories of my time at the school are mixed at best, and I received an indignant letter from one teacher following my failure to join the standing ovation given to Helen Clark in parliament. I was to be very pleasantly surprised.

I received a warm welcome from the principal who, like me, is an old boy – albeit a couple of years “less old” than me. I spoke for about 20 minutes to a largely attentive group of seventh formers (alright, “year 13’s”, but that doesn’t have quite the same ring.) I told them about Youth Parliament, an opportunity for 120 young people to live the life of a parliamentarian for two days, complete with a debate in a mock House, question time, and attendance at Select Committees. I concluded by inviting any who were interested in being my nominee to stay behind for a quick chat.

I had thought there might be little if any interest in taking part in something that, for them, must seem arcane and remote from their lives. I need not have worried. Seven eager and articulate young people lined up for consideration. To be fair, I asked them all similar questions: what they thought a pressing political issue of the day was; depending on their first response, I asked them to point to another issue, social or economic issue of the day. The most common responses were the pending(?) rise in GST, and the proposed increase in penalties for cruelty to animals.

One thing that surprised me was the range of political views in a general sense, and even the fairness of a rise in GST. A number of the students were aware of my involvement in ”three strikes”, and to my surprise, a third or so thought it was a very good idea. I do not think they were being sycophantic, although I am obviously on a different wavelength from students of 16 or 18. It was reassuring to field one question from what we would have called “the class smart arse”, clearly eagerly awaited by others who knew it was coming. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

Selecting my Youth MP is not going to be easy. I invited all who remained interested after the interview to send me 600 words on “Why I would make a good Youth MP”. One keen fellow had already done so before I boarded the plane at 5.30. I will await the rest with great interest. If the senior students of Campion College Gisborne are anything to go by, we all have some room for optimism.

Sensible move to track abusive mothers

Posted on Wednesday, 3 March, 2010 - 10:54 by David Garrett

The change of direction by this government is no better illustrated than by the move announced today to keep track of abusive mothers who have either had their children taken into care – or worse. This seems so sensible that one wonders why it is not already happening.

But then we have had nine years of a Labour government which believed that no-one should be “tainted” by their criminal offending, and offenders of all kinds should have endless “second chances”.

The example quoted in the Herald today epitomising the failure of the present system is Lisa Kuka, the mother of Nia Glassie. Kuka had had a child removed from her care in the past, but because there was no tracking of Kuka, she was able to give birth to and neglect Nia without the authorities being aware of Nia’s existence or what was happening in her short tragic life.

This will now change, thereby as a side effect removing the need for officials to literally stand by the bed as Chris Kahui’s new partner gave birth to another child fathered by him. The sad reality is that the mother of the dead twins – still in her thirties – has the ability to have perhaps eight more children. I believe she has already had six, two of whom are dead and the others removed into care.

No doubt some fools will say that this should not mean her “rights” to have more children should be constrained. I say that one abused child should move the onus onto the parents of that child to show that they are fit to have the care of more children, and allow the authorities to determine whether they can.

This is an easy statement to make, but the implementation of what lies behind it opens a Pandora’s Box of difficult questions. It has become a well worn cliche that one needs a licence to own a dog, but not to have children. Should this be the case? If one needs a licence to have children, who should decide whether one is granted? Should it be possible to reach a point where a person – male or female – is made physically unable to reproduce further? If that is ever the case, who would decide?

Those are hugely difficult questions, but in my view that should not prevent us having a discussion about them. The raw reality is that the present system of “interventions” – to use the present jargon – is not working, and children are being abused and killed every day.

It is probably fanciful to look to a return to families and communities of yesteryear when abuse and killing of children was much less frequent. If those families and communities are lost forever, we need to look at other ways of protecting our most vulnerable – no matter how difficult and distasteful they may be.