I expect them to:
- act with integrity
- be constructive and positive
- heed the evidence and discard unfounded belief
- act in good faith
- listen to those they represent
- listen to those they disagree with
- do their homework and be informed
- share with us what they have learned
- have an open mind and not act on prejudice
As professional legislators they have the time and resources, including physical support, allowing them to at least make a good start on the job they have been elected to do. Overall, most of them do a good job.
(Aside:Those locally elected seats still have far too many party hacks from the major parties in them. The list-only parties tend to be much better behaved as they have to please ALL their voters, not just the largest minority in one small part of the country.)
Ultimately, they are all accountable to those who voted for them. For me, this is the key: accountability.
Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) completely lack any means of holding the decision makers - voters - to account. Reality does that if they get it wrong. Worse, voters do not have to behave anything like the list of qualities I consider make a good legislator.
Let's start with the past petitions. Those that have succeeded have been uniformly emotive and playing on public sentiment and relying on public ignorance.
The number of fire fighters. The issue was REALLY about radical changes to the public service. Fire fighters were the poster boys for public antipathy to cuts in services. But the real issue would have been too complex to make into a referendum question.
The number of MPs. The case for returning to 99 MPs lacked any substance. Numbers have nothing whatever to do with behaviour of MPs. More MPs mean more people to do the work; more skills available for cabinet; a larger back bench to hold the executive to account.
The worst one (until now) was:
'Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?'Unless you agreed with ALL of that, you should have voted NO. Hell, even I was tricked into voting YES, until I went home after voting and thought about it. The question presumes all these things will work and there is plenty of evidence some do and some don't. But people saw the words "emphasis on the needs of victims" and endorsed the lot - worthy or not.
But the straw that finally broke this camel's back with respect to CIR is the present petition regarding the repeal of the old Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The old law made lip-swelling, black-eyed hidings inflicted by parents on their children defensible in law.
I've already explained why the new law is good.
That 390,000 people (apparently) signed this petition is occasion enough for sadness. The ignorance displayed by every last one of them has killed any hope I had that CIR would not prove to be flawed in reality, however attractive they may be in theory. Voters just aren't up to it, judging by the petitions that have succeeded to date. The lack of care demonstrated by this statistically HUGE sample of Kiwi voters is reason for genuine concern.
Now we may well have to vote on a typically one-sided, nonsensical question that fails to address the REAL issue: violence against children.
"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand."The question is based on the deliberate misrepresentation of reality the petitions promoters have been putting about. It relies on the public having swallowed that misrepresentation and thus believing any parent or guardian who slaps their child's hand or slaps their bum will end up in court.
Never mind there is no evidence whatever to support this belief.
Who knows? Maybe it would be defeated. But past dumb questions on emotive topics have been no reason to expect rationality and careful consideration from voters on this latest hysterical expression of public misunderstanding of how things really work.
If these were binding referenda we would all be held hostage by these things. I'd have to constantly donate money to OPPOSE the latest hare-brained, knee-jerk referendum from the Moral Panic Brigade or the Grumpy Old Farts Club.
I bow down and give thanks to Sir Doug Graham for insisting CIR be non-binding. He is clearly a very wise man. He has saved me some serious coinage.
I'm still a fan of representative democracy. Those 120 people in Wellington take a lot of abuse defending us all from the ignorant and foolish among us while also finding time to run the country or hold those who are to account in the House. But I won't be upset if some future government completely disregards this referendum should it be carried. Passing this question would be (more) proof that NZ voters can and should be ignored when they act on unfounded belief and out of ignorance.
I was one of the very few who voted against proposition in the justice reform referendum because while I had sympathy for the sentiments behind it I didn't support all the points.
ReplyDeleteI also voted against the reduction in MPs (rural electorates are too big with 120 MPs and if we still had FPP we'd have more than 100 MPs now because the North Island population grows faster than the South's); and against the firefighter one because I don't think industrial relations should be sorted out by referenda.
That's the problem with CIR - they either have too many points, or the statements are so bland they're meaningless.
However, I still stand by the right of people to petition for a referendum; the principle that if the petition reaches the required number of signatures it should be put to the people as soon as practicable; and that parliament then has the right to take notice or not of the result - that's what non-binding allows.
hp: I agree and see we would have voted the same way on all of these had I not incorrectly voted YES to the justice one. Like most people, I voted for the part of the question I liked and ignored the rest. I regretted it later.
ReplyDeleteI did support the right to petition for referenda, but the utter waste of the facility to date has me giving quiet thanks they ARE non-binding. If they were binding, I would be completely opposed. All the evidence to date suggests it would be mob rule from the start. The questions put, as you say, have too many points or mean nothing.
The questions tend to reflect the muddled thinking behind each of these efforts.
The smacking hysteria is similarly muddled and should be kept well away from any election. That won't be understandable to anyone muddled about the law on the point, but to those of us who DO understand the law change, it is clearly a politically motivated campaign backed by people who don't care what the law says. They are happy to mislead people who don't know any better. Family First's ads in the NZ Herald were jst as bad as the EB leaflets handed out at the last election.
This looks like a cynical proxy attack on Labour. The people running this campaign have shaped their "evidence" with the intention of deliberately misleading people. I've seen propaganda of all types and their stuff is classic.
Indicative referenda are useless.
ReplyDeleteBinding referenda would be worse.
In the current debacle Clark is simply exposing herself as a manipulator for her own purposes.
Anon: I can easily understand Clark's lack of patience with this particular petition and any related referendum. In this case, the interests being served in putting tit of until after the election aren't only hers. I remember the mess in 1999: the LONG queues to vote and the length of time it took to get the results. A postal ballot on this waste of time, well away from anything important, would be much better. I'm happy for people to have their say - never mind it means nothing in the end.
ReplyDeleteOf course no one wants good parents to be criminals and the new law doesn't make them criminals. So it hardly matters whether you vote yes or no....the question itself is erroneous.
The new law is wasting police resources.
ReplyDeleteIt is antagonising those scrutinised and not prosecuted.
The involvement of busybody social workers lurks in the wings.
If a teacher overhears a child say it was smacked at home, what does the teacher do? And at what cost to the teacher, the child, and the parents should there be any action taken where the Police are involved, particularly if the matter is trivial, and/or involves a (mandatory?) warning?
The law is vexacious and does not stop the criminal assaults on children any more than dog chipping stopped dog attacks.
anon: How is the new law wasting police resources? Police must respond to reports of child abuse. They would be irresponsible not to investigate such reports after so many wee ones have died at their parents hands. These investigations would happen no matter what the law was if people observing child abuse are motivated to call the police.
ReplyDeletePeople being investigated for abusing their children should think carefully about their own behaviour rather than blaming those who were concerned enough to report them. You're describing the typical response of an abusive person. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.
Social workers only get involved after reports of abuse ave been made....and rightly so. They have been put through the meat grinder for NOT checking out reports of abusive behaviour toward children who later were seriously injured or died.
Kids with bruises black eyes or fat lips or burst ear drums most certainly DO need there home situations followed up.
It's amazing we want "zero tolerance" for people who spray paint on fences, but we don't use the same approach when people assault children who can't protect themselves.
No one smacking a kid on the hand or spanking a bottom once or twice is going to have the police set on them.
To attrct the attention of social workers and the police the person concerned has been doing far more than that.....and deserves the attention no matter what the law is - the new or the old.
The police and social workers would have to investigate these complaints ANYWAY. That is why the moaning about the new law is so stupid. Almost no one has been prosecuted, but public tolerance of violence toward children HAS fallen....and that is a good thing. If some of these abusers refuse to accept they are being too hard on their kids, it's they who need to smarten their ideas up. I have kids. I smacked there hands and bums when they were very little and didn't understand unsafe things, but once they learned to talk I very rarely ever had to make a physical point. Words and actions were more than enough to get them back on track.
Our family doesn't shout. I reckon shouting means you've already lost it. Because when you're shouting, you're not listening and nor is anyone else. It's over.
Personally, I would not sign the petition, I believe there should be no referendum, and agree with John Key's position of waiting to see how the new law works before making changes ( nor do I believe laws should be rescinded just because there is a change of Government).
ReplyDeleteDescribing your own parenting, you could have been describing mine.
The waste of Police resources is because in all of the cases they have investigated there has been no case to answer. Had there been even one case that warranted Police intervention, then the law would be seen to have at least a modicum of justification.
I don't think you would be labelled a child abuser for your self-described parenting, yet you would have been caught by this law, and to quote you, "Police must respond to reports of child abuse. They would be irresponsible not to investigate such reports after so many wee ones have died at their parents hands. These investigations would happen no matter what the law was if people observing child abuse are motivated to call the police."
You also quote - "No one smacking a kid on the hand or spanking a bottom once or twice is going to have the police set on them." And yet David Cunliffe was the first person in NZ to be reported to the Police. Nobody suspects that the Minister is a child abuser, but your language allows no such leeway.
Anon: Your response doesn't address the issue of ANY report made of abuse will be investigated out of necessity. If some malicious person decides to make vexatious complaints against Cunliffe or any other person, that would need to be sorted out under any formulation of the law. The Crimes Act 1961 made/makes it illegal to assault children, too (S194(a)). The old Section 59 was a defence in law against that prohibition. All of that applies AFTER the police have been called.
ReplyDeleteYou can't stop people calling the police.
The Cunliffe incident was in a shopping mall but I believe the complainant was a teacher.
ReplyDeleteThe complaint itself cannot be described as malicious or vexacious.
The current law was observed to have been broken.
The discretion in the matter lies with the Police, not the complainant.
Incidents like this in public may be the tip of the iceberg of what happens in the home. The cases persued to date, under this law, all suggest otherwise.
Anon: The teacher who reported Cunliffe had every right to do so under the Crimes Act 1961 - amended or not. S194(a) makes it very clear that assaulting children is illegal.
ReplyDeleteWhether under the old version of the law or the new one, discretion to prosecute ALWAYS rested with the police. Under the new law, the bar has been lowered so that eye-blackening, lip-swelling, ear-drum popping assaults on children no longer have a defence in law.
In either case, no parent has ever been prosecuted for smacking their child if smacking was ALL they did.