Speech by David Garrett MP, ACT New Zealand

To ACT National Conference 2010; Wellington College, Dufferin St, Wellington
Saturday, February 27 2010

First, I would like to thank you all for coming today. I know you will all be expecting me to discuss Three Strikes and to give an update on the revised policy, but today I want to step back a bit, and look at the bigger picture. So for those who want an update, please make sure you pick up one of the pamphlets we have prepared. If you still have questions, or wish to discuss aspects of the policy further, please feel free to contact me directly.

We have had various sessions today on the perils of the Emissions Trading Scheme, on ridding ourselves of useless red tape, and why parents should be in charge of their kids’ education. These different topics are all linked by a common philosophy - that we can choose for ourselves how best to live our lives.

ACT believes that the best decisions are made at the dinner table, not the Cabinet table.

We in this room want a more prosperous New Zealand for present and future generations in New Zealand. Unlike every other Party in Parliament, we recognise that far from the Government assisting citizens to achieve this goal, it is the Government that’s holding us back. Government cannot grow the economy, but it can certainly stuff it up for those who can.

The state does however, have one very important role - to keep people safe from criminals. This should be the number one priority for any Government.

The vast majority of New Zealanders are law-abiding people, who want to build a better future. Government should get out of the way and let them – and come down hard on those who break the law.
The 2008 election rid us of a government of apologists. In 2002 Labour changed the law so that rapists and violent thugs could be released on parole after just one third of their sentence. Labour thought that if we were nice to them, they might just be nice back.

I am an ACT member because, unlike Labour, we are not a party of idiots. ACT is the natural home for those who believe in common sense law and order policies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that tough action is the only language violent criminals understand. Over 92 percent of the population demonstrated that they knew this in 1999, when they voted for tougher sentences in a referendum. The other eight percent, however, took charge for the following nine years.

Recent statements indicate they have learnt nothing while in Opposition. On Tuesday, former Labour MP David Parker spoke in Parliament about ‘the day when Graeme Burton re-enters society’. Well even Graeme Burton, someone who has killed two men and tried to murder several others, knows he will never be let back into society. That is, it seems, unless David Parker and his mates are let back into power.

It was also under Labour that Burton received his $12,000 state of the art titanium leg, courtesy of the taxpayer. Governments are supposed to keep us safe, not reward murderers. I am pleased to be in a room full of good people who realise this.

Back in 1997, the UK Labour Party had the slogan ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’. There is one particular cause of crime I want to address right now, and that’s welfare support for those who are of undeserving of it. They are relatively few, but they have an impact far beyond their numbers.

Many people say poverty and crime are linked. This is both completely contrary to the evidence, and an insult to the temporarily unemployed and working poor, who make an honest living and are trying hard to climb the ladder. It is worth reminding ourselves that is the poor and brown who are overwhelmingly the victims of crime, not middle aged white guys like me.

There are a good number of people who have it ingrained in them that this country owes them a living. It is after all, a country that, through welfare, has provided their parents with a living and is now doing the same for their own children. Last Monday I ran into Principal Youth Court judge Andrew Becroft in Christchurch. The previous evening he had given a speech in which he spoke of a ‘lost generation’ of children, the product of a broken system.

It’s a system that has given birth to killers like Bailey Junior Kurariki, done for manslaughter at the age of 12. Despite extensive efforts to rehabilitate him, he has reoffended again and again on parole. Kurariki and his ilk grew up with two terrible role models; their parents – when they are there - and the welfare system that makes this way of life so attractive to these miscreants.

I have heard beneficiaries refer to dole day as ‘pay day’. As of September last year 612 people have been getting the dole for between five and ten years. Another 195 have been getting it for 10 to 20 years; nine others for over 20 years. I confess that one in the last category is known to me personally.

Judge Becroft has said that the number of violent offenders the Youth Court deals with has doubled between 1995 and 2007. By definition then, the system that has produced that result must be broken. Governments are responsible for the welfare system that’s gifted us a lost generation, high in crime and bereft of values. I’m glad this government is making a positive impact where it must – in law and order. But only with ACT’s input can this government create a policy mix which rewards good values, protects the weak, and closes the welfare trap in which too many refuse to climb out of.

‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ has been a mere slogan for far too long. It’s time to face up to the fact that ‘the causes of the crime’ are not just the obvious ones identified at the National Party’s Drivers of Crime conference last year. It’s time to face up to the fact that in its present form, the welfare state has - in considerable part - facilitated the development of a ‘crime is OK’ culture among some. Three strikes is a major shift in our criminal law.

It would not have happened without us.

Reforming the welfare state is a much greater challenge, but in my view one that needs to happen if we really are to tackle the causes of crime. It will certainly never happen without ACT leading the charge.

ACT New Zealand Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett today welcomed High Court Judge Justice Asher’s call for the Government to review laws on knife possession, and agreed that offenders should face tougher penalties.

"Carrying a knife without a reasonable excuse was once a serious offence that drew harsh penalties. In the softening up of the justice system that has occurred over the past 20 years the harsh penalties for knife possession have been lost. It is time for that to change," Mr Garrett said.

"People – particularly young men - will always get into conflict with one another – a situation that can be made worse by alcohol. What would normally be a case of assault can quickly become deadly when knives are involved. If individuals are unarmed the risk of serious harm reduces dramatically.

"It’s too easy for would-be offenders to pick up a knife without thinking of the consequences. We need to send a message that knife possession is not acceptable in our society and harsher penalties will do this.

"If the Government is serious in its claim of taking a tougher stance on law and order, this is an area it cannot ignore," Mr Garrett said.

ENDS

ACT New Zealand Justice Spokesman David Garrett today reiterated ACT's opposition to the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill until such time as alternative defences – such as diminished responsibility – are put into law.

"This would ensure that mitigating circumstances are taken into account when individuals are on trial, as advocated by the New Zealand Law Society and senior prosecutors," Mr Garrett said.

"If successful, the partial defence of provocation reduces 'charged with murder' to 'guilty of manslaughter'. This defence is open to both men and women and – contrary to recent claims – victim's sexual orientation is irrelevant. It is not – and never has been – a 'gay panic' defence.

"This defence was recently highlighted when Clayton Weatherston attempted to use provocation as a defence, but failed. This failure shows that the defence is working, and still has a place in the 21st century.

"Had provocation as a defence been repealed, however, Weatherston could have raised it at sentencing - causing exactly the same distress to Sophie Elliot's family as he did in the trial itself. Arguably it would have been worse, as the Elliot family would have had to undergo two separate ordeals at Weatherston's hands.

"Arguments for a repeal of the defence are weak, at best. It should be a jury of one's peers – not a judge – that decides whether the defence is justified," Mr Garrett said.

ENDS

The censoring of Victim Impact Statements is an example of the courts attempting to usurp the role of Parliament; my Victims’ Rights (Victim Impact Statements) Amendment Bill makes it clear that it is Parliament - and not the courts - that make the law, ACT New Zealand Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett said today.

"Only two sections within the Victim Rights Act 2002 govern the content of victim impact statements, imposing very few limits on what can be said. Yet the courts have taken it upon themselves to impose further conditions, in effect censoring victims statements as they see fit," Mr Garrett said.

"This is a gross interference in the power of Parliament and the courts must be reminded that they cannot effectively rewrite the law to suit their interests.

"My Bill makes it clear that victims of crime can read their statements with minimal interference from the presiding Judge. As long as their statement is not unreasonably long, and does not contain words that are defamatory or clearly untrue, victims will be able to make whatever comments they like.

"A victim impact statement is the victim’s last chance to tell the criminal about the impact their actions have had on their lives. Hurting the criminal’s feelings should not be a concern," Mr Garrett said.

ENDS

ACT New Zealand Justice Spokesman David Garrett today announced that he will draft a Private Members' Bill – in support of calls from the father of murder victim Sophie Elliott – to change the rules regarding censorship of victim impact statements, giving victims and their families more freedom to confront those criminals who have afflicted their lives.

"Victim impact statements are often the only opportunity a victim or their family will have to tell the offender of the effects of their crime. Mr Gil Elliott and his family have every right to feel aggrieved that the judge at Clayton Weatherston's sentencing ordered the heavy censorship of their victim impact statement," Mr Garrett said.

"Clayton Weatherston brutally murdered Sophie Elliott in her family home and, in doing so, sentenced the Elliott family to a lifetime of pain. It is they who feel the effects of her loss every day and who deserve the right to speak their mind to the man who coldly and callously took their daughter from them.

"Although Justice Minister Simon Power is currently reviewing impact statements and other aspects of victims' rights, there is no guarantee that this will result in more freedom for victims' families.

"That is why I am currently drafting a Private Member's Bill to amend the current rules regarding what can be said in an impact statement – specifically the rule that victims cannot criticise offenders. It is time that we upheld the rights of victims, rather than trying so hard to ensure that criminals' feelings aren't hurt," Mr Garrett said.

ENDS

The British Government’s decision to increase minimum sentences for knife attacks to 25 years – an increase of 10 years - is part of a growing trend in western countries recognising that law and order policies treating offenders as victims do not work, ACT New Zealand Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett said today.

“Statistics show that a punitive approach to law and order can dramatically reduce the frequency of serious offences – as proven in California where ‘Three Strikes’ has seen a 65 percent reduction in homicide and violent crime," Mr Garrett said.

“In order to protect our communities and reduce serious violent offences, we must ensure the penalties are such that criminals are incentivised to change their behaviour. ACT’s ‘Three Strikes’ policy does just that – creating a strong incentive for criminals to amend their behaviour or face a lengthy jail sentence with no possibility of parole.

“Opponents of ‘Three Strikes’ in New Zealand have claimed that a punitive approach to crime is draconian and describe it as a backward step in the treatment of criminals. The British Government’s announcement, however, proves that countries similar to ours do not share those sentiments.

"A tougher stance on violent crime is the way forward. Britain has taken a stand – so must we,” Mr Garrett said.

ENDS

ACT New Zealand Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett today released new information to prove that prison works as an effective deterrent to crime and showing that a huge proportion of offenders who serve a prison sentence make sure they do not have to do so again.

"Answers to my written Parliamentary Questions have revealed a significant drop in the number of prisoners who, having served one prison sentence, are sentenced again," Mr Garrett said.

"According to these figures: as of October 27, 65 percent of the total prison population - 4,315 inmates - had served at least one prior sentence. Yet only 35 percent of the prison population - 2,312 - had served three sentences.

"This information flies completely in the face of those who claim prison does not work. The fact is that the more time an offender spends in prison, the more reluctant they are to return once they have been released.

"Only a small number of offenders are constantly recycled through the prison system. The vast majority of prisoners learn the error of their ways.

"This is the logic behind ACT's 'Three Strikes': strikes one and two will deter all but the worst offenders - and they will be locked up to ensure they cannot harm anyone else. Whether the critics of 'Three Strikes' want to believe it or not, the fact is that prison works," Mr Garrett said.

ENDS

ACT New Zealand Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett was today appalled to learn that Andrew Peter McGlynn – believed to be New Zealand's most recalled 'lifer' – is to be recalled to prison just three months after being released on parole for the fourth time.

"McGlynn and others like him are living evidence of the need for ACT's 'Three Strikes' policy and proves that claims 'Three Strikes' would not work are simply nonsense," Mr Garrett said.

"A Black Power member, McGlynn was originally sentenced to 'life' for murder 23 years ago. He was released after a mere nine years, only to be recalled following an armed robbery. He was released again in 2003, and recalled a second time after another armed robbery. A couple of years later he was released yet again, and recalled after assaulting a female.
"McGlynn is an intelligent and articulate criminal who has been able to fool the Parole Board - not once, but four times - and gain release to go on to further serious offending.

"His most recent parole was on 10 special conditions – including continuing to take medication for long time mental illness, and abstaining from drugs and alcohol. He lasted less than three months before seriously breaching his parole conditions and evading capture for two days after crashing a car.

"He is also a perfect example of the type of offender who would have been prevented from offending long ago had ACT's 'Three Strikes' law been in place. Assuming he was released in the first place from the 'life' sentence for murder - which would be his first 'strike' - he would have received 14 years for the aggravated robbery committed in 2003, thus saving the female victim who suffered at his hands shortly thereafter. McGlynn would, in fact, have been in jail for his latest armed robbery until 2017.

"Once he is recalled, McGlynn should never again be released – lest he join the 12 other offenders who have served a 'life' sentence for murder only to kill again upon release," Mr Garrett said.

ACT New Zealand Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett today accused the police of failing to enforce their own guidelines and placing themselves above the law.

"Police guidelines state that, when asked, police officers are legally required to either display or supply their badge number – yet this clearly is not occurring," Mr Garrett said.

"Last month, while attending a call-out in Khandallah, police used force against a teenager they mistook for a gatecrasher at an out-of-control party. During the incident, the teenager suffered broken vertebrae in his neck after being struck with a baton. When he asked for the officer's badge number, he was told to 'eff off' – in direct contradiction of long-standing and established police guidelines.

"This is totally unacceptable. Police are charged with upholding and enforcing the law and, as such, must be seen to adhere to it themselves. Recent events - such as those involving drunk driving - have dealt some blows to the public's trust in police and incidents like this will only detract from their credibility.

“We cannot have a police force whose members refuse to identify themselves – albeit by number. This is one of the characteristics of a police state.

"If New Zealanders are to have any confidence in the police's ability – and willingness – to keep them safe from criminals, they must not be seen to be acting like the very offenders they are supposed to be apprehending," Mr Garrett said.

ENDS

Having carefully reviewed the proposed Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill following the report back from Select Committee, ACT has decided to support the National Party and ensure the legislation passes through it's Second Reading, ACT New Zealand Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett said today.

"While ACT initially had concerns around the infringement of property rights - particularly those of third parties like relatives and lenders - we are satisfied that these issues have been adequately addressed by the Select Committee," Mr Garrett said.

"When weighing up the prevention of dangerous illegal behaviour and the need to uphold private property rights, we must also carefully balance ordinary citizens' rights to enjoy their environment without fear of threat or harm with so-called 'rights' of hoons. ACT believes that this Bill gets that balance right.

"Further, the proposed Bill is consistent with ACT's ‘Three Strikes’ philosophy – destruction of seized vehicles can only occur where a person is convicted of a third illegal street racing offence within four years.

"Before that can occur - and it is at the discretion of the sentencing judge - any third party with an interest in the vehicle will have received prior written notice of the possible consequences of that vehicle being involved in similar offending. Both the offender and the third party have rights of appeal on a number of grounds against any order for destruction of the vehicle.

"ACT is satisfied that this is a sensible Bill, which covers loopholes in similar legislation passed by the previous Government while also adequately protecting the property rights of innocent third parties," Mr Garrett said.

ENDS