Sunday, September 21, 2008

David Garrett is ACT's Number 5

Sources within the ACT Party told me a few minutes ago that David Garrett of the Sensible Sentencing Trust has gained the ACT number 5 spot.
Earlier in the week, David Garrett gave his views on gangs to the NZHerald.
The Standard is not happy at the sound of Mr Garrett.
As for me, I'm not too sure.
I had been expecting a big name, maybe even a celebrity to add a bit of colour.
Worthy as David Garrett may be, he does not seem that high profile.
Obviously he will be 'sound' on law and order and will add some strength to ACT's list.
But is it enough? Could ACT have done better?


Barnsley Bill said...

Why the delay in naming him? All comes off as a bit amateurish really.
When will panty slut boy call himself for winston first.I see bauble boy was in dunedin campaigning the other day!


Indeed BB, it makes it appear there was a last minut droout and ACT had to scrabble around trying to find someone else.
Had it been someone to set the pulses racing the delay might be justified.
The text from my ACT informat suggests my friend is not excited about the candidate either.
I hope ACT does agood job in selling Mr Garrett but last time I looked Nothing was on the ACT website.

Psycho Milt said...

The Standard seems to have it about right. An ACT member warned me I probably wouldn't be chuffed with their 5th list placing, and I'm not. If they're going to align themselves so closely with the nutbars of the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the Asian Anti-Crime Group, could they at least stop calling themselves "The Liberal Party?"

Rick said...

Very much the question on the minds of many an ACT supporter today, PM.

The Silent Majority said...

"could they at least stop calling themselves "The Liberal Party?"

As any ACT supporter will tell you, the prime role of government is to ensure the safety of it's citizens". That is why tougher approach to Law and Order is important in NZ today. So it sits perfectly with the ACT party.

I think David Garrett is an inspired choice. Look at some of the first 5 of the party list, Roger Douglas (lower government expenditure, more freedom), John Boscawen (the champion of freedom of speech) and now Dave Garrett (keep our communities safe).

Perfectly Liberal

Sus said...

SST & AAG "Nutbars", Milt? Really? Ask the families of William Bell's victims and Michael Choy's mother, both of whom attended ACT's launch yesterday, if they think that?

I'm not a member of SST, AAG or ACT, but I went along yesterday to hear what they had to say for myself, rather than getting it second-hand. How about you?

Fact: Crime *is* endemic, relative to only a couple of decades ago - or has that escaped your notice? One Chinese lady in the audience had her arm broken last week when some mongrel shithead loser decided her handbag belonged to him. That's happening to hundreds of Asian women in Sth Auck every year. It's disgraceful and shameful.

The AAG's Peter Low's Sth Auck business has been broken into six times in the last five years.

And a Chinese lady of his acquaintance was burgled 50 times - *50*! - in two years. Not surprisingly, she's returned to China.

Michael Choy's mother is forced to relive her son's brutal death every two months when *she* has to persuade the parole board why they should keep his killers locked up.

The same parole board that recently released a serial sexual predator in spite of his victims' protestations .. the PB said he was an exemplary case of being rehabilitated .. he was ensconced in a house very close to a primary school and rest home. Within a very short space of time he was arrested for the sexual attack upon a, (hope you're sitting down), 95 year old lady.

You get the picture. The primary role of govt *is* to protect its citizens and this govt's thumbed its nose at the escalation of crime for nine years.

As a smaller than average woman, I take my security very seriously. Shame the govt doesn't.

Psycho Milt said...

Yes, "nutbars," Sus. The Sensibe Sentencing Trust is just good ole "Hang 'em and flog 'em" conservatives, and the Asian Anti-Crime Group seems over-enthusiastic for Asian-style authoritarianism when it comes to any subject that doesn't involve their ability to make money for themselves.

I wouldn't have picked either group as being suitable associates for a Party calling itself "Liberal," and I expect quite a few of ACT's members are feeling the same way (Rick's comment suggests I'm right).

As to how this makes ACT look, I think it's worth quoting The Standard at length, because the quote reflects exactly how this makes ACT look:

Garrett is a Barrister and is also a legal advisor to the Sensible Sentencing Trust who drafted their draconian “Three Strikes” law.

One of the closest supporters of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is the Asian Anti-Crime Group. The AAG is the same organisation that, according to documents released by the EPMU, met with Rodney Hide to push its social and economic agenda and cut a deal to mobilise the Asian vote for ACT in exchange for places on the ACT list.

As has been previously noted here the Sensible Sentencing Trust has also refused to register under the Charities Act or as a third party under the EFA so there is no public record of its financial or party political activities.

If Garrett is announced as fifth on ACT’s list then there need to be some serious questions asked about the connections between the SST and ACT and about the extent these “anti-crime” groups are involved in party political campaigning for ACT while refusing to register with the electoral commission.

As Rodney is claiming to be “New Zealand’s leading proponent of accountability and transparency” I’m sure he’d be happy to answer any such questions openly.

Psycho Milt said...

Danyl also has a good post on exactly how this makes ACT look. Money quote:

ACT likes to pretend it is a classical liberal party but ‘turn back the clock’ does not seem like a very liberal sentiment. You’d also think a liberal party would be interested in some form of drug legalisation (’get the dead hand of the state out of people’s private lives’) ect, but no such sentiment is to be found in the ACT law and order policy.

Sus said...


Firstly, no argument from me (a libertarian) re ACT's "Liberal" party tag .. I've made similar comments to Danyl's myself for quite a few years.

And I don't agree with the "three strikes" policy, either. AFAIC, why wait for somebody to commit *three* serious crimes before imposing a harsh penalty? Libz policy is harsh penalties for harsh crimes, period.

As a true liberal (!) & opponent of the EFA, I couldn't give a monkey's as to SST's & AAG's "public record" of its political and financial dealings, inasmuch as I couldn't give a monkey's about whom an organisation such as the EPMU might support - (although I have a pretty good idea). ;)

I simply respect their right to their own opinions. 'The Standard' should note that SST made the point that it is not endorsing the ACT party, per se; it simply endorses their policy on law & order. Big difference.

The EPMU, no stranger to supporting political parties itself, is cheesed off that one of their own has changed tack.

I also don't like the term "the Asian vote" and its collectivist, treat-them-all-as-one implication.

David Garrett is indeed SST's legal advisor. The point was also made that he has worked with every SST case for no charge.

The Standard should also choose its words with care. "Draconian" is a word beloved of the left, although it never uses it to describe its own disgraceful activities, eg the EFA. While Californian law can rightly be described as such, it should be noted that Garrett's policy is not the same.

Psycho Milt said...

As a true liberal (!) & opponent of the EFA, I couldn't give a monkey's as to SST's & AAG's "public record" of its political and financial dealings...

I don't doubt it. Fact remains, Rodney Hide has made a big deal out of transparency and accountability when it comes to NZ First's backers, so perhaps he should apply the same principles to his own party's dealings.

I also don't like the term "the Asian vote" and its collectivist, treat-them-all-as-one implication.

I agree. I just direct my dislike not so much towards The Standard's drawing attention to the fact, as towards the people actually dealing on that basis: Rodney Hide, Shawn Tan and Peter Low.

Sus said...

Milt, I think you give Hide, Tan & Low too much credit - or either the many Kiwis of Asian origin in eastern Auckland too little - if you think the former can singlehandedly grab the latter.

But will ACT play politics? What do you think!

I doubt The Standard is so quick to fingerpoint at Labour's routine "vote for us" activities in the largely Polynesian suburbs of Sth Auck, or its traditionally red "we'll promise you lots of other people's money" electorates ...

I doubt "documents released by the EPMU" - obviously gospel - would show that either!

As for who's pointing the finger at whom concerning undisclosed financial support, two wrongs never make a right. But the fact is that crime, especially the escalation of violent crime, has been ignored from day one by this govt. ACT has decided to make crime its core issue. *If* that strikes a chord with voters, it'll be to ACT's benefit.

What's really annoying the openly partisan Standard is that their bosses can offer no argument to the contrary. None.

James said...

Sus the Lib.....ACTs weapon of mass destruction....well done!



Personally I can't see any conflict with ACT's liberal roots and a tough, blunt but fair law and order policy.Classical liberalism is founded on the protection of individual rights....and law that has teeth is inseperable from that.

If they don't want to end up with 25 to life then don't do the crime...simple I would have thought....but then thats Labours voting base in the shit isn't it Milty?