Maxim Institute - real issues - No 244 15 March 2007

www.maxim.org.nz

Hubris and the House of Lords
Criminal law shouldn't be a soap box
Our global connections

IN THE NEWS

Strengthening the relationship between Maori and the Crown? PM on record against a ban on smacking

HUBRIS AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Britain's constitutional arrangements are a messy affair that evolved over a time period most countries can only dream of. The foundations of the House of Lords stretch back to Magna Carta and beyond to the foundations of England itself. This week, in the interest of tidiness, MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of reducing Britain's upper chamber to an elected body.

On the face of it such a move might seem harmless, even positive -- a promotion of that sacred shibboleth, "democracy" -- but such a move would drastically change a central safeguard of the British electoral system. The vital question is: why change?

The statesman Edmund Burke referred to what he called the 'wisdom of the ancients'. For Burke, this meant that when we look at our society's constitutional arrangements today, and consider how all the sections function together, we see the result of centuries of accumulated wisdom. It is hubris in the extreme to think that we can unravel the various threads that compose such arrangements and fully grasp the rationale behind each one. The House of Lords in the UK might seem like a messy arrangement; it is full of a motley assortment of Brits, ranging from aristocratic landowners, to Law Lords, to Church of England Bishops. Yet, it is precisely this messiness that makes the system work.

It is a balanced House, made up of people genuinely concerned with their duty to the common good; people who are willing to put the country's best interests ahead of their political ties. It serves a function very different from that of the House of Commons, taking the time to refine legislation and consider it free from elective pressure. The British public owe a great debt of gratitude to a House that fulfils its function of scrutinising legislation so admirably, and with such thoroughness.

So far it is only the House of Commons that have called for such radical changes, and whilst these plans are far from being finalised, it is clear that when reform comes, as it surely will, it is likely to be draconian and radical. The most likely suggestion mooted thus far is a House comprised of elected representatives who would serve 15 year terms and be elected proportionally from Party Lists. This raises the spectre of two elected Houses competing for supremacy, and selecting candidates from Party Lists is a death knell for the independence of the Lords.

The suggestions for what the House might look like in the future create new and worse problems that far surpass the kindly messiness of the old. It is both naive and arrogant to think that we can effectively start from scratch and build something better than that which we have received from our forebears, refined by centuries of experience.

Read a White Paper about the proposed Reform of the House of Lords

Write to the editor

CRIMINAL LAW SHOULDN'T BE A SOAP BOX

Debate was hot in Parliament this week as the "anti-smacking Bill" began the upward climb into its final stages. This process was slowed down significantly with a classic display of 'filibustering' (a fancy name for stalling tactics), by the National Party and independent MP Taito Phillip Field.

Despite much political and public opposition to the Bill, at the moment it seems likely to pass through its final votes and become law. A vote must be taken on Chester Borrows' proposed amendment, which, at present, is expected to go down by a small majority. If this happens, the Bill is predicted to pass with the changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. Due to Parliament's timetable, the earliest that this can happen is 2nd May.

Reasons given in support of the Bill have revealed deep-seated confusion about the proper function of criminal law. The Maori Party this week offered their support for the Bill, saying it is a "statement of aspiration" that will "encourag[e] whanau to create and maintain violence-free homes." During Wednesday's debate Labour MP, Charles Chauvel, suggested an appropriate title for the Bill would be "The Sending a Very Clear Public Message That Violence Against Children is Unacceptable Bill". The Bill is clearly being used as a soap box for politicians to talk about making a change, but the Bill itself will do nothing practical to prevent violence against children.

It is not the proper role of law to send aspirational messages which the Police are not expected to enforce, regardless of whether the message is a desired one or not. Law should accurately reflect what a society regards as criminal; what is right and what is wrong and what deserves prosecution and conviction. The Bill fails this test. In fact, because it does not target the factors associated with child abuse, it will not even send the message its proponents' desire. Criminal law is a powerful tool and it should be made for the right reasons.

Read Maxim Institute's Fact Sheet on Chester Borrows' Amendment

Maxim Institute recently published a book by Dr Michael Reid detailing the historical development of children's rights and the politicisation of children. It is an important book for those concerned with the deeper issues behind the repeal of section 59.

Read more about the book and how to purchase a copy

Write to the editor

OUR GLOBAL CONNECTIONS

We've all heard it said that New Zealand has never been better connected to the rest of the world. But does that mean we are well connected? As a small nation at the bottom of the South Pacific, how can we overcome 'the tyranny of distance'? A new discussion paper from the New Zealand Institute examines these issues and what they mean for our economy.

Why does this matter? The short answer is that it affects all New Zealanders' standard of living. The economy is the engine-room of wealth creation; to increase the wealth of all New Zealanders, we must grow our economy. The Institute states that this requires increased productivity, which in turn requires greater engagement by New Zealand businesses with the global economy and better international economic performance.

With this discussion paper, the latest in a series, the Institute identifies three things that we should do to increase our international economic performance. The first is to strengthen our air and shipping links which are vital for carrying our merchandise to the world. But more than just managing "the downsides of New Zealand's physical remoteness", the Institute emphasises the need to think outside the square. For this reason, it suggests more New Zealand businesses develop 'mini-multinational' business models, for example, by locating manufacturing overseas, closer to target markets and in areas unaffected by our tight labour market and 'skill shortages'. There are of course legitimate concerns about investing in countries where labour conditions are inadequate and this should be weighed in any investment decision.

Finally, the report suggests an increased emphasis on developing "virtual supply chains" which are unaffected by physical distance. New Zealand currently ranks a disappointing 22nd out of 26 OECD countries surveyed for internet access services.

Economics isn't everyone's cup of tea, and many eyes glaze over when globalisation comes up in conversation. However, the report is a valuable reminder of the challenges facing our economy and, therefore, our country. As such, it demands attention from us all.

Read the report So Far Yet So Close: Connecting New Zealand to the global economy

Write to the editor

IN THE NEWS

STRENGTHENING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAORI AND THE CROWN?

The Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, has released his report into Race Relations in 2006, saying that the relationship between Maori and the Crown needs to be strengthened. Surprisingly, he told The New Zealand Herald that a Maori Parliament or council of elders may be needed as a united Maori voice on broad issues, and urged further discussion on strengthening the relationship.

Read the Race Relations report

Read Mr de Bres' comments in The New Zealand Herald

PM ON RECORD AGAINST A BAN ON SMACKING

Prime Minister Helen Clark is confronting claims of a u-turn on the "anti-smacking Bill" this week. In an interview on Radio Rhema with Bob McCoskrie before the last election, Ms Clark was asked if she wanted to ban smacking. She emphatically replied, "absolutely not", saying that a ban on smacking would defy human nature. According to Newstalk ZB, Mr McCoskrie, now National Director of pro-family lobby group Family First, has called on the Prime Minister to allow Labour MPs to vote for Chester Borrows' Amendment, saying that given her comments, she should have no problem with it. Ms Clark is reportedly still supporting Bradford's Bill because she believes that parents who lightly smack will not be prosecuted under the Bradford Bill because the Police will use their discretion.

Whilst under the Bill, not all parents who lightly their child smack will be prosecuted, they will still be committing a criminal offence. Therefore Bradford's Bill would still, in effect, ban smacking.

TALKING POINT

"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."

Winston Churchill

A registered charitable trust, funded by donations, Maxim Institute values your interest and support.

Click here to find out how you can support Maxim Institute

Maxim Institute's regular email publication, Real Issues, provides thought-provoking analysis of developments in policy and culture in New Zealand and around the world. You can express you views on any of the articles featured in Real Issues by writing a letter to the editor. A selection of the best letters will be posted each week on Maxim Institute's website .

ENDS

© Scoop Media