Armstrong on ACT divisions
March 14th, 2009 at 8:56 am by David FarrarJohn Armstrong covers the divisions within ACT over their u-turn to support the gang patch ban bill:
All such talk of free expression seemed to have been conveniently put to one side last week, however, as Act executed a 180 degree about turn and voted for a private member’s bill banning gang members from wearing their patches in public areas within the boundaries of Wanganui city – a bill Hide had previously described as “rubbish”.
The concession was made in the hope of securing a far bigger gain – passage of Act’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill. However, this pragmatic decision to back the gang patches bill promoted by the National MP Chester Borrows has been greeted with dismay by some party members.
Angry responses have been posted on blog sites from activists saying they did not stuff envelopes or knock on doors during the election campaign to see the party backing laws curbing individual rights – be they those of ordinary citizens, gang members or whomever.
And some of those activists have bene involved since the beginning.
Act is hoping that its voting for Borrows’ bill will make National – and particularly the more liberal-inclined Justice Minister Simon Power – look more kindly at the part of the new Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which is Act policy.
In its current state, the bill is an amalgam of both parties’ positions. They are reasonably compatible when it comes to sentencing someone convicted of a first or second violent offence. Where Act and National differ markedly is in the case of someone committing a third such offence.
Under Act’s provisions, a violent offender would go to jail for 25 years minimum without parole full stop. National’s position is less severe in allowing judges to exercise discretion.
Armstrong is one of the few to catch on that the difference between National and ACT is only at the third strike.
Armstrong concludes:
A high-profile measure of that added-value will be the wording in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when it emerges from Parliament’s select committee.
If the bill shows National has heeded the wishes of its support partner to some degree, then trampling over the rights of gang members in Wanganui will be seen by most, though not all, of those in Act to have been fully justified.
There will be pressure for there to be some sort of compromise between National and ACT on what happens with a third strike.
Related posts:
- The revised Three Strikes Law
- Tension over three strikes law and a possible solution
- Will the gangs move?
- Banning gang patches a simplistic answer
March 14th, 2009 at 9:02 am
About time National started to “man up” and pay some respect to its main support partner, ACT.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 9:24 am
There isn’t a division as one would like to put it, Key is speaking at the ACT conference right now and from what I hear it’s a good speech. National are wary of blowing their first time in Govt after being out for so long – they need ACT to light the way for them. Just like in the 90′s when we gave National some teeth and helped get rid of Winston to save Nationals last Govt.
The banning of patches and tattoos is a bloody terrible bill – it’s a shocker. I am surprised that much of the media is focusing on ACTs stance on this. I remember the Greens swallowing an awful amount of Labour policy despite their electioneering huffing and puffing.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
No, they also have differences of policy over what should happen on the second strike. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill just adopts National’s second strike policy and ignores ACT’s.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 9:28 am
ACT’s proposal is grotesque because it removes any discretion with respect to the third ‘strike’.
While in many cases outcomes will be similar (or perhaps slightly harsher) than at present (ie those sentenced to preventative detention), there will be the odd case where it operates quite unfairly or unjustly, and it could even be against someone who Sensible Sentencing Trust would regard as a victim).
By all means spell out the intent loud and clear in the ‘purpose’ or ‘preamble’ to the Sentencing Act, but allow judicial discretion. They will take heed of the ‘purpose’ and ‘preamble’ because the Interpretation Act requires this, but they can exercise discretion to deal with exceptional cases.
IMO National has more to fear from the Act Party than Labour at present. If ACT becomes too influental in National’s governing, this will IMO turn off many National voters. Where ACT poses a potential electoral threat to National, John Key should tell Rodney Hyde in no uncertain terms where to stick it.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
There are also substantial differences in policy over what constitutes a strike.
ACT would count every conviction for a specified offence as a strike; National would only count as a strike those convictions that *actually* result in a 5-year prison term. This is a massive difference.
ACT included a number of far less serious crimes on their list of specified offences (e.g. smacking, injuring by unlawful act, assault with intent to injure); National didn’t include these.
ACT also *excluded* a number of serious crimes that National wanted in (assault with intent to rape, attempted rape, robbery, aggravated robbery, various child sex offending crimes etc.)
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Calm down Peterwn. National have never had anything to fear from ACT at all. The whole idea of the three strikes bill comes from the feeling that many people actually support it. The SST have been pushing for this and I see another petition has been given to National that supports harsher punishments too. Sure it may seem extreme to many as well, but thats the beauty of being able to debate it. Good on ACT for once again pushing big ideas – just like when we kicked off the tax debate in the 90′s and how ACT always are punching above its weight.
Overall Graeme, what do you think of this bill? It certainly has got a lot of people talking!
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Clint – I’m a big fan of allowing judges to judge. But I do recognise that both ACT’s initial draft, and especially the combined one that is the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill has been specifically drafted to avoid the pitfalls of three-strikes’ American antecedents.
I’m not a fan of the proposal for mandatory life without parole for second strike murder – I think there are better things to do with our taxes than keep 80-year-olds confined to hospital beds under prison guard.
The mandatory 25-to-life on the third qualifying strike goes too far as well; we’re told it’s about protecting the public from people who’ve proved themselves to be serious recidivists, but it also doesn’t take into account the possibility that some people can change (for an uncontentious example, by being paralysed from the neck down). If instead of a mandatory 25-life sentence on the third qualifying strike it was a mandatory sentence of preventive detention with a minimum non-parole period set at the finite sentence that would have been imposed, I suspect it wouldn’t be considered to breach the Bill of Rights.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:06 am
I must admit that I don’t like the direction ACT are going in atm. I’ve never voted for another party and currently there is no better alternative with a realistic chance of getting into parliament but I wish they would drop the bullshit ‘tough on crime’ populism and get back closer to their libertarian roots. David Garrett was a bad choice imo.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“The whole idea of the three strikes bill comes from the feeling that many people actually support it.”
That is a poor basis for policymaking. And it looks to me as if Act is compromising its (good) principles for grubby political dealmaking and populism.
Peterwn is absolutely right. A blanket three strikes and you are out policy is foolish. There must be room for judicial discretion or you will create injustice. This is always the problem with laws: they have to deal with a real world that is hugely complex.
And right too about “National has more to fear from the Act Party than Labour at present. ” Right or wrong, Act is on most issues too far from the mainstream.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:16 am
A blanket three strikes and your out is a fantastic idea, should we let a low life with two prior convictions for assault stay on the street just because his “third strike” happens to be a simple burglary?, should we leave him on the streets until he does commit his third assault or until he actually kills somebody?
The reason so many people like the three strikes policy is because it removes discretion from the hands of the limp wristed liberal judiciary.
Lock the bastards away for a very long time.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Well National won by capturing most of the reef-fish and a significant number of them did not vote for National they voted against Liarbore. The only reason the polls are still holding is because Liarbore hasn’t yet geared its propaganda to start reminding this politically ignorant group of ‘the golden years.’ Once they start doing that the polls will start reflecting the drift but it won’t be because they think ACT is scary, it will be because they’ve stopped thinking Liarbore is.
One thing about ACT, peter. It will never compromise its principles in the way The Greens did (e.g. in the way The Greens supported the EFA.) At the same time it displays welcome pragmatism which again is a feature that was lacking in The Greens. It will be interesting to see how the differences in these two dynamics differently affect the reef-fish’s perception of the govt parties relationships over this term, as compared to their perception of the Liarbore-Green relationship.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am
ACT has seriously lost the plot when they are happy to rip up the Bill of Rights Act and reduce the rights of everyone (not just gang members) to nail gang members and repeat offenders. One could argue that ACT are being just as thuggish as the gang members.
By Hide’s own definition he is now against the principles of freedom and democracy.
Remember that the state uses the Bill of Rights to reduce our rights, as described in my post:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/act-party-tramples-on-freedom-to-get-three-strikes-law/
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/gang-insignia-bill-takes-a-step-forward-freedom-takes-a-step-back/
In the second post I refer to the fact that there is no need to ban gang patches, because the offence is already covered by other legislation.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:21 am
“And it looks to me as if Act is compromising its (good) principles for grubby political dealmaking and populism.”
Deviating from principle is what has killed the greens. It will do the same thing to ACT (and the Maori party for that matter too if they pull the same shit ACT has recently).
I have faith that the MPs will do the right thing, and their comments were only made during a full moon.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:27 am
MikeE: your faith in politicians is touching. Do you also visit the zoo and walk into the lions’ enclosure?
(I’m not getting at you, just the politicians)
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Personally I’m surprised both ACT and National aren’t promoting the ‘broken windows’ policy rather than the ’3 strikes.’
Broken windows not only has a large body of research evidencing demonstrable effect on the crime stats it also has a visible political effect as well. Win-win for both politicians and the electorate.
3 strikes OTOH, has mixed results, is highly emotive and promotes arguments even amongst conservatives as we’ve seen above.
Seems rather silly to me, to waste the significant crime and punishment electoral opportunity on something so devisive.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am
You’ll hate the three strikes bill ACT is currently pushing for, then?
No matter how many assault or burglary convictions someone has, none of them will count as strikes.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
“MikeE: your faith in politicians is touching. Do you also visit the zoo and walk into the lions’ enclosure?
(I’m not getting at you, just the politicians)”
Only whne the lions are caged and on tranqs (same thing applies to the pollys)
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Thanks Graeme, a fair comment.
It seems *some* people here are a little blinded by their “evil ACT” radar rather than looking at facts. I mean, seriously S Russell – ACT being “too far from mainstream” is a little silly and shortsighted. You obviously didn’t read the ACT pledgecard which showed ACT policy being in line with left and right countries around the world. If you like I can send you a copy
Put it this way, if somebody seriously attacks me, my family, friends or even any of you on this thread. I’d be very happy for the person to be punished for it. As I am sure you all and the rest of the country does. If this person has done it three times and has no remorse…. then what? Cuddles? Clocking up a dozen convictions? or worse…breeding???
Oh and kiwipolemicist, MikeE has the same distrust in politicans as I do.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am
So why hasn’t anything ever been done to enforce it over the 30 thirty years we’ve witnessed the rise and rise of the gangs?
I recall one of the comments in that excellent post from the bureaucrat who talked about the risk-averse focus of the civil service, was that one consequence of that focus, was the Police would never dream of putting together a white paper stating the obvious fact that if a policy was developed to rationally decriminalise drugs, it would destroy the gangs power base.
That’s the sort of thinking that ACT-National needs to be encouraging – pragmatic, outcome-focused, realistic, no sacred cows.
I’m waiting, and hoping and waiting and waiting. I’m getting a bit sick of waiting, quite frankly…
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am
reid: I firmly believe that legalising drugs would give gangs a kick in the privates.
I also believe that the state has no right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies. It’s all explained here:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/the-pointless-death-of-an-undercover-policeman/
(For the record I have never used illegal drugs, so I’m not pushing my own barrow)
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
kiwi pol, agreed.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
garrett is a clown..
..(and seems to have stepped up into that role .. previously filled so amply by hyde..)
…and act have become a sad joke..(the party of ‘personal freedoms/rights’..eh..?,..)
..and hyde is just showing himself as a shallow/opportunistic polly..
..willing to throw supposed ‘deep beliefs’..straight out the window..
..at the drop of a hat..
..and for what..?
..a law that won’t lock up the first three-striker.
..for about twenty years..(!)
..fools..!..and clowns..!
..the global economy is on fire..
..serious environmental outcomes are just around the corner..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/lord-stern-on-global-warming-its-even-worse-than-i-thought/
..and we have a do-nothing govt..
..to replace the previous did-nothing govt..
..oh joy..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I completely agree.
I think anti-gang legislation is wrong, however the problem with moral and effective legislation is that it only works if the whole system is moral and effective (i.e. liberal).
The gangs are a great example: if we allowed everyone to own whatever weapons they liked, defend themselves from attack and buy whatever drugs they want, not only would we eliminate the financial power of the gangs, but we would almost completely mitigate their power of intimidation.
After all, I might be intimidated by a gang of thugs on the street ’cause I know they’re carrying weapons and don’t care a shit for their own lives, but I’d be decidedly less intimidated if I was also packing one of these.
The point is that proper laws rely on other laws being proper too, so if we’re going to have a shitty, fucked up, illiberal state, we may as well make it shitty and fucked up for the gangs too
.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Apologies, if I were also packing…
English fail
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
And with one of these Christopher you’ll be able to leap tall buildings and the like although the lack of x-ray vision may be a problem.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Christopher has hit the nail on the head: an illiberal state/system disarms and disempowers all but those who are willing to break the law, so the bad guys win.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
BIG BRUV is right…If the three strikes is to be monitored by Judicial Discretion then it is a waste of time they simply won’t impose it. If National want a weaker Act they could negotiate the 25 years down a bit but don’t let the Judges destroy the purpose of the Act…………..As for the Gang Patch bill it only applies to Wanganui. The people of Wanganui are overwhelmingly in support. It will be a trial which the rest of the provinces can assess for themselves. There is no need for any of you who live outside Wanganui to take off your patch.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
reid asks:
So was I, reid. Very few offenders start off at the serious end of the scale. Take a look at the criminal history of most and you’ll see years of preliminary vandalism, theft, burglarly, assualt and the like, graduating up the scale over many years till they reach “3 strikes” eligibility. And leaving sometimes hundreds of victims in their wake.
“Broken Windows” effectively addresses the problem before the victim numbers pile up, by showing zero tolerance for petty offences. It saves the state money, it saves property owners and insurance companies money, and it makes the streets safer. Most importantly, it lessens the number of traumatised victims in society.
“3 strikes”, on the other hand, relies on victim numbers increasing in order to punish the offender. But by the time they’re on their third strike, how many people have suffered so a politician like Garrett can salivate at the thought of harshly punishing a criminal?
Act had one shot at introducing a law and order policy and it let itself be railroaded into “3 strikes” by McVicar, Garrett and the other sadomasochistic nutbars in the SST. In return for what, I’m not sure… some electoral support, certainly, but enough to compensate for the long-serving, principled party members who are turning away in disgust?
I witnessed another party founded on principle – NZ First – abandon those principles as soon as it got a whiff of real power, leaving members who’d worked hard to build it from nothing bewildered and betrayed in its wake. I can’t help but feel I’m witnessing the same phenomena here.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I think you’re confusing broken windows with zero tolerance.
Broken windows isn’t about arresting people, but preventing crimes occurring by targeting urban decay: fix broken windows and other windows are less likely to get broken, remove graffiti quickly and others are less likely to graffiti in the same area, pick up litter and others won’t litter, etc.
Zero tolerance was about arresting people for all those minor crimes. Broken windows is similar, but focussed on fixing the environment which might breed crime. The two could be used in conjuction (as they were in New York under Giuliani), but that wasn’t necessarily the case – broken windows started in some areas of NY 10 years before Giuliani’s zero tolerance was introduced.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Yes thanks Graeme, I was imprecise. The two are now usually run side-by-side so I’d slipped into usin “Broken Windows” as a term encompassing both. I meant, in fact, both Boken Windows in its original form, and zero tolerance – though not necessarily criminalising minor offenders at the outset, more about diverting them into cleaning up their own mess.
Vote: