DPF has a post up about the new ACT Law and order policy:
You read the story on ACT’s law and order policy and you get the impressions it is a policy to have more slogans. At first glance we have:
- Will “turn back the clock”
- zero tolerance for crime
- a communities-first approach to policing
- one law for all
- harsh quick justice
None of which mean much to me.
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.
ACT leader Rodney Hide commented on David’s post
I am not an expert on law and order policy . . . That’s why I enlisted the help of Garth McVicar of Sensible Sentencing Trust and Peter Low from the Asian Anti-Crime Group. They have helped ACT a lot with policy.
Peter Low was last seen suggesting that he was going to pay triad gangs to protect Asians living in Auckland. Actually this does seem sort of in line with ACT party philosophy but the Sensible Sentencing Trust just seems like a plain old conservative ‘hang ’em all’ outfit – they don’t seem remotely compatible with classical liberalism.
It’s always been the assumption that ACT would enter into a coalition with National in much the same way that Jim Anderton is a ‘coalition partner’ with Labour – but as ACT gets weirder it’s looking more like a liability than an asset.
UPDATE: As The Standard points out this raises questions about the independent status of the SST during the election campaign:
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.