John Armstrong: Garrett's assault revelation gut punch for ailing Act

David Garrett's assault conviction has invited calls of hypocrisy, given his espousal of a "zero tolerance" approach to violent crime. Photo / Mark Mitchell

When it comes to nails and coffins, Act is in plentiful supply of both. Nor is it short of MPs whose behaviour has unwittingly begun digging its grave.

The news that one of the party's MPs has a conviction for assault is probably not spectacular enough to make Act's current plight even more dire. But it does add another layer of veneer to the casket.

David Garrett's conviction, which dates from 2002 when he was working as a lawyer in Tonga, was always going to get prominence. Much more so, given he is Act's law and order spokesman and an ardent promoter of the party's "three-strikes-and-you-are-out" sentencing policy.

Garrett faces accusations that he is a hypocrite because he has promoted a "zero tolerance" approach to violent crime while hiding his conviction on just such a charge.

The MP, however, disputes the conviction. He says he was smacked on the jaw and that he did not punch anyone. He lodged an appeal, although so far without securing a hearing.

Ironically, the seemingly bizarre circumstances surrounding his conviction provide a strong argument why judges have traditionally been given discretion in the sentencing of offenders and why allowing politicians to impose rigid instructions on the judiciary when dealing with repeat violent offenders under "three strikes" could be a big mistake.

Act's leadership faces accusations it has been duplicitous. Garrett told Rodney Hide about his conviction before the last election when Garrett secured a slot high up Act's list on the back of his links to the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Hide, however, neglected to tell the public.

Hide may have deemed the conviction, which resulted in Garrett being fined the princely sum of $10, no longer relevant, even though it occurred in the not-too-distant past.

Yet, as Labour's Phil Goff noted yesterday, Act has consistently voted against "clean slate" legislation wiping the convictions of people who committed crimes in their youth but who have stayed on the straight and narrow ever since.

So it seems to be one rule for Act and another for everyone else.

Had people known about Garrett's conviction, it would surely have been much more difficult for him to mount a high horse and crusade for "three strikes".

Yet his reason for being in Parliament at all is to promote a hardline stance on law and order.

That would have posed a real dilemma for Hide whether to change Garrett's portfolio responsibilities because of the conviction.

Even allowing for those factors, there was still a cover-up. As so often happens, the cover-up turns into something more damaging than whatever it was covering up. More so in Act's case, given it proclaims to be the party of "transparency and accountability".

It is not insignificant that Garrett holds the casting vote in any leadership rumble in the five-strong Act caucus with Hide and deputy leader John Boscawen on one side and ousted deputy Heather Roy and Sir Roger Douglas on the other.

Hide's continued leadership may hinge on opinion polls registering a high enough party vote to enable Boscawen and Garrett to coat-tail back into Parliament at next year's election on the back of Hide holding his Epsom seat, something which is by no means certain any more.

What was most evident yesterday, however, was the contrast between Act and the Maori Party. This week will see the latter achieving its major goal of having got legislation before Parliament abolishing Labour's hated foreshore and seabed law. Act, meanwhile, is mired in yet another distraction it does not need.