The S-Files Committee met over the weekend and decided after robust debate to bestow an S-Award upon disgraced politician, David Garrett. This was not an easy decision to take, but on balance we are convinced it is right.
The facts of the case will now be well known to our New Zealand readers. About twenty-six years ago, David Garrett stole the identity of a dead child to perpetrate passport fraud. His crime came to light in 2005 as a result of more rigorous historical checking on passport issuance, provoked by the theft of NZ identities by Israeli secret agents. Garrett was subsequently convicted and discharged and a suppression order (presumably for the sake of the dead child's family) was put over the case.
Garrett claims that the crime was a student-prank and that the false passport was never used for any nefarious purpose.
Someone (presumably a political enemy, either from within his own party or some other party) leaked the details of the suppressed case to the media. Garrett has now made full disclosure to the Parliament and has resigned from the Act Party and will almost certainly resign from Parliament. We understand that when he was asked to stand for the Act Party at the last election, he made full disclosure of his past crime to the party leader, Rodney Hide who decided that it was not an impediment to him standing. (The wisdom of Mr Hide's decision is not within our purview here.)
We quote from a public resignation letter written by Garrett:
In recent days serious matters from my past have become public. . . .
From the time references began to be made by journalists to “other charges” I was aware that the media may have obtained details of my discharge without conviction in 2005 for an offence committed in 1984. However as a trained lawyer, I was acutely aware that there was a suppression order in place regarding that case.
While others have seen fit to act as if that suppression order does not exist, as a member of the bar I could not act in the same way. I obtained preliminary legal advice from a QC on what I could and could not say. I was advised that the question was very complex, and while I could speak in parliament under the absolute privilege afforded MPs, to say anything outside the House risked breaching the suppression order.
I was further advised that the only safe thing for me to do in the legal sense was to apply to the North Shore District Court – where my case was heard – for a waiver or discharge of the suppression order so I could be free to speak about my own case. That has now been obtained so I am freer to speak that I was, but issues have arisen regarding the affidavit I swore in that case which means I am unable to discuss that aspect of the case.
I can do nothing to change the past. For any number of reasons, I wish I had not done such a stupid and dreadfully hurtful thing in 1984. When my wrongdoing was revealed, the worst aspect of it all for me was reading the letters written by the mother and sister of the dead boy whose identity I used to obtain the passport.
As a result of my own actions, my political career is almost certainly over, but that is not my greatest concern. The worst aspect of all of this for me is that those who have seen fit to do so have opened the wounds of the boy’s mother and sister all over again. As the person who inflicted those wounds in the first place – however unwittingly – I must take ultimate responsibility for that.
I wrote letters of apology at the time – letters I realised were woefully inadequate, but there was nothing else I could do. I wish to reiterate my profound regret for the distress and hurt my thoughtless actions inflicted on two women, one of whom is elderly. I am simply unable to imagine how it must have felt at the time they first learned of what I had done, and I am equally unable to imagine what they must feel now.
I still well recall my horror when I read the letters from the boy’s relatives, one of them in the handwriting of a clearly elderly lady. I do not think I have ever felt worse.
There is certainly no excuse for what I did, and I make none.
My second major regret is the damage I have caused to the ACT Party, which has a very important role to play in parliament.
I now want to do the right thing both by the public of New Zealand and the ACT Party. I have therefore this morning advised the leader that I resign from the ACT caucus effective immediately.
I want to make it clear that I do so of my own volition. I have been advised that I am entitled to two weeks leave from parliament, and I intend to avail myself of that to consider my future. At this point I simply cannot make a decision on that.
It would seem to us that Mr Garrett has acted honourably.
Therefore, we are pleased to bestow on Mr Garrett the S-Award, Class I for actions in the public sphere that have been Sound, Salutary, and Selfless.
Postscript: It may seem strange to some, if not hypocritical, for a Christian website to commend the subsequent actions of someone who has been convicted of a crime. However, the essence of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is that He cleanses and restores the ungodly. Thus the theme of redemption and restoration is central to the Christian faith. Consequently, Christian charity encourages us to extend a similar generous grace to all who have done wrong and repented of it--even if such sorrow and restoration remain outside the Church of our Lord.
We Christians can hardly glory in the wondrous grace of God in Christ towards us, mere worms, whilst denying a reflective, imitative generosity toward all men who have done wrong and come bitterly to regret it. To claim truthfully the forgiveness of God requires that we forgive those who sin against us.
The sincerity of Mr Garrett, we believe, is evidenced by his apparent willingness to put others and the greater cause (as he sees it) ahead of himself. How we wish the house of Parliament and the corridors of government were filled with such as he.
No comments:
Post a Comment