A cautionary tale about trying to make robust law just before an election
Last April when the Land Transport Amendment Bill was going through the Select Committee stage, then Green MP Mike Ward raised some concerns.
It was an omnibus bill, which means it was fiddling with bits and pieces all over the relevant law. The Greens agreed with nearly all of it, certainly enough to vote for it.
But Mike noticed a problem with the clause on preventing serious offenders from holding passenger licenses and he argued for just a few extra words to fix it. Here’s what the the Committee’s report said (PDF, go to pg 2) :
The Green Party strongly supports improving safety for taxi passengers and preventing unsuitable people from holding passenger endorsements. However, the Green Party is concerned at the permanent and retrospective exclusions created by new clause 29A. Under this clause someone who committed a serious offence in their teens, served their time and then led a blameless life for 20 or 30 years will lose their license with no possibility of reinstatement. The Green Party is uncomfortable with the potential for injustice, especially when there is no evidence that such a blanket prohibition delivers a significant improvement in safety compared with alternatives.
There is a wide range of options between the status quo and the provisions of the bill as supported by the majority. The Green Party would prefer that clause 29A was qualified to allow such a person to hold a passenger endorsement where the Director [of Land Transport] is satisfied that there is no risk to public safety now or in the foreseeable future from the person concerned. This is a very high test and places heavy onus on the Director, who should err on the side of caution. Failure to include even such a restrictive exemption provision means that we are elevating taxi driving to a status well above such sensitive areas as early childhood education in terms of the standards we impose on those involved. In the Green Party’s view, the main result will be to penalise a small number of individuals who have long since been rehabilitated while doing little to improve the safety of taxi passengers overall.
Now, the fact that that is all reported as a minority view shows you that he failed to get those words added. Why?
Well here’s what then United Future MP Marc Alexander, also on the Committee, had to say at the time:
United Future’s Marc Alexander today slammed the Greens “over-weaning concern� for serious criminals who they would have driving cabs.
“Can we think about the safety of the paying public here?” Mr Alexander said in response to the Greens’ dissenting view on a select committee report that would ban all convicted murderers and serious sex offenders from driving taxis, under the Land Transport Amendment Bill.
“If you are paying for public transport, you are paying for safety, and you have the right to travel without fear that you are being taken through the back streets by someone who has killed or molested or raped - and I don’t care if the conviction was 30 years before. It is the proverbial no-brainer,” he said.
“I don’t accept the Greens’ ‘well if they haven’t offended for years…’ line. Shall we take that approach with teachers with a predilection for child pornography or child sex convictions many years before? Of course we wouldn’t - and neither should we with the safety of the travelling public.”
I’m told that everyone from the Minister down actually thought the blanket, no discretion, ban was mad but, with an election rapidly approaching, no one wanted to be seen to be ’soft on crime’. Alexander in particular whipped up a moral panic on the committee and was only too happy to do the standard UF thing of accusing the Greens of being liberal wimps, rather than actually listening to what we were saying.
And so the Bill passed last June and its changes take effect today. And for the last week, the media has got worked up over drivers who committed *minor* sexual offences a long time ago losing their licenses and the Government is scrambling to fix the ‘unforeseen’ error. NZPA reports today:
Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven today said out of about 270 drivers potentially affected by the law, about 12 had contacted him who carried old convictions for having sex with their under-16-year-old girlfriends while they too had also been young.
Their records were otherwise unblemished.
“I don’t believe this law was intended to catch these people,” Mr Duynhoven said.
Mr Duynhoven said he had asked Crown Law and justice and transport officials to study the issue and see if there was a solution that would allow appeals against the new provisions to be heard at a high level.
“I think in this sort of thing it’s always good for the director of land transport to have some sort of discretion.”
However if such appeals were completely impossible under the new set of rules, Mr Duynhoven would approach other political parties to seek support for an amendment that would allow appeals in such cases.
Now it’s worth acknowledging that Mike was coming from a more liberal position than most of the populace - that someone who has committed a serious offence in their teens can be rehabilitated and therefore trusted, so he was talking about a larger group than covered by this current fuss. Nevertheless, if the “high test” of giving the Director discretion, which the Minister now publicly supports, had been included in the law at the time, as the Greens suggested, this wouldn’t be happening.
As Keith said on Friday:
“We argued some sort of high-threshold discretion should be built into the system. Such discretion is vital if we are to respond to real human cases in a common sense and compassionate manner. It is not without precedent, being available in matters such as immigration.
And what are UF, which did so much to create this problem, now saying about this? Here’s Mr Common Sense himself on Friday:
United Future leader Peter Dunne pointed out today that the legislation that will cause some bus drivers to lose their jobs, because of minor sexual offences committed several decades ago, appears to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
“Section 26 states that ‘No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again,’ ” he said.
“There’s no doubt that these drivers are being punished again for the crimes they committed and were punished for decades ago as a result of the implementation of this legislation.
[snip]
“The purpose of the legislation is clear but a very blunt instrument has been employed to remedy the harm identified,” said Mr Dunne.
All very reasonable in and of itself, particularly given that he seems to be acknowledging that rehabilitation is possible. So good on him for pointing out the Bill of Rights implications.
However, it was Mr Dunne’s own party that ensured that the instrument was so blunt. If he had paid attention to what his MP Marc Alexander was doing back in April, this debacle could have avoided.
January 16th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
On Friday, Duynhoven said that the Select Committee had made the amendments agains the advice of officials. I’m trying to get hold of that advice under the OIA, but I’m wondering whether anyone from the Greens knows about it…
January 16th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Idiot/Savant: All papers from a Select Committee’s hearing on a bill are public once the bill is reported back. You should therefore be able to get them just be contacting the clerk of the relevant committee. You don’t need to OIA them.
Sorry, with Mike gone, our over-efficient recycling seems to have gobbled our copies.
Advice to the Minister of the time will need an OIA request. Given that the committee only makes recommendations, and Parliament acts on them, it’s bit rich for the Minister to claim the Government had nothing to do with this. They went along with UF.
January 16th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I don’t think the new law actually breaches the Bill of Rights but agree, for other reasons, it’s bad law. I’ve set out my analysis on my blog:
http://laws179.blogspot.com/2006/01/taxi-drivers-sex-crimes-and.html
January 16th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
I recommend deanknight’s post on this as the link above. It’s a thorough consideration of the legal issues of this situation.
January 16th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Greens definitely right on this, you don’t get caught up in the conservative right’s hysteria about ostracising anyone who has ever committed the current trendy outrage law. They always want a sledgehammer to crack a nut - It used to be drugs, now it is sex.
January 16th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
I don’t see BoRA implications either, but am surprised that you think that differing opinions within a political party (like those of Alexander and Dunne) are something bad.
Whatever one thinks of Marc Alexander (and I don’t agree with his conclusion) the arguments you quote of his are sensible, well-thought out arguments advanced for his position (which I am confident he still holds, despite the now widespread public oppisition to his law). He just doesn’t think it is worth the risk to allow any serious sexual offender (however distant that offending) to drive passengers.
Contrast with GE. There is no proof that GE food is dangerous, but the Greens think it should be banned (some Greens think it should be labelled). It may be fine, but greenies do not consider it worth the risk, even if the risk that a particular item of GE food is dangerous is very low. The release of GE rice type A may pose only a negligible risk, but GE food as group is considered risky - rice A may be fine, but we have no way of telling which one of the hundred GE rice strains that may be released is dangerous.
Alexander recognises that the risk that certain serious sexual offenders pose (as drivers of cabs/buses) to the public is perhaps only negligibly greater than for public transport drivers generally, however, as a group, he considers those who have committed serious sexual offending to pose a substantially greater risk to the public.
By banning all serious sexual offenders from holding passenger licences we will almost certainly hurt some who will never offend again, just as if we ban all strains of GE rice, we also prevent the release of many safe strains of rice.
We cannot know which serious sexual offenders will offend again, much as we may not be able to know which items of GE food are in actuality dangerous. Alexander does not think the former is worth taking a risk over. Greens think the same of the latter. I disagree with you both, but neither his arguments, nor the arguments I impute to you, are facile or idiotic.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:38 am
To be honest, I’m particularly disappointed with Ron Mark. It would have taken a lot of courage, but I think it would have made a difference if he’d stood up and said, “Why am I a fit person to be a Member of Parliament but not to drive a taxi?”
January 17th, 2006 at 2:19 am
Craig:
I agree that it is disappointing that Ron Marks didn’t make the point at the time. However, I suspect that he is enough of a politician to understand that the whole fiasco could well have been turned into a personal crucifiction for him by some of his Parliamentary “colleagues”… and the media.
As it is now, with “safety in numbers”, he is just mentioned in passing as an example of the urgent need to amend the law, with little if any personal damage done.
January 17th, 2006 at 9:20 am
yes..ok..the greens can take some small crumbs from the fact mike opposed this stupid law at the select committee stage..(belated kudos due to mike..eh..?)
but what happened to your (mp’s) collective common-sense after that..?
why didn’t you take heed of what mike was pointing out to you..?
you all voted for this dogs’ breakfast of ill-thought-out/repressive/retrospective/irrational/knee-jerk legislation..didn’t you..?
was there a colllective rush of blood to the head..?
or was it just another component of the ‘we are just being so nice to labour…’cos we are hoping they will be nice to us” ethos rampant at the time..?
btw..craig…good point..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Phil: the Greens voted for the Bill as a whole because Caucus supported all but the taxi/bus driver clause. From the speeches given at the time (see 15 June 2005 at http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Hansard.aspx).
Keith at the second reading said “The Green Party is supporting this bill. It makes a lot of good amendments to the land transport regulations.” The rest of his speech was about the taxi/bus driver matter.
Mike at the third reading said “We support the Land Transport Amendment Bill. It contains a range of common-sense measures and is the outcome of numerous submissions and substantial consultation and deliberation. ”
and later “I wish to speak briefly about the provision for licensing small motorised personal transport devices—namely, mopeds, scooters, skateboards, recumbents, etc. The rationale for exempting these vehicles is that if the motor is such that they pose no more threat than someone on a bicycle, then what justification can there be for treating them differently? The bill has a little wriggle-room to provide the director with the opportunity to consider new and innovative devices that might pose a minimal risk, for inclusion in the list of devices not requiring licensing. I think that is an interesting aspect, and with the need for more innovative means of transport, it opens up the opportunity for some of those more innovative means of transport. The Greens will be supporting the bill.”
My reading of all that is that the decision to support it had nothing to do with supporting Labour, the Greens voted for it because Caucus actually supported what it was doing, with the exemption of this taxi/bus business.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Can someone tell me why the Clean Slate Act doesn’t apply in this case. Surely if the offence was minor and more than 7 years ago, it should not appear on the drivers’ records and would therefore not be counted against them?
January 17th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
There are limits on the clean slate provisions (see section 7). For example, it does not apply to “specified offences” set out in section 4 (sexual crimes such as sexual intercourse or indecency with a girl between 12 and 16). And it doesn’t apply to anyone who was imprisoned for the crime.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Eredwen:
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I understand that Ron Mark is genuinely liked around Parliament across party lines, even by people who want to puke at his politics, and it’s not as if his conviction for statutory rape is a big secret. The man was guilty of a serious error of judgement when he was 19 not some grubby raincoat with a Lolita complex.
My point is that it’s very easy for politicians to get swept up in rhetoric and fine abstractions and not consider the human cost of the decisions they make. I know it’s very easy for me to be brave on behalf of other people, but I gave mad props to Sue Bradford for talking about her own experience of rape when relevant legislation was before Parliament. While she didn’t get the desired result, you have to admire her integrity and courage.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Edge - If Marc had a sensible, well thought-out position, it would include a relevant overall context and a well-balanced, accurate and relevant assessment of the risks (both for and aginst implementing it).
His argument has a simple logical integrity but is both extremist and victimising of a class of people. He may have used a great deal of brainpower in it’s formation, but since the result is both legalistic and unfair, I say facile is a good characterisation. And lacking in common sense.
To get specific: “By banning all serious sexual offenders from holding passenger licences we will almost certainly hurt some who will never offend again…” - for every one of those prosecuted for underage sex with their partner there will be countless who were never prosecuted. This does ban all serious sex offenders.. it bans some people who were caught, including those convicted of less serious offences.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
um..frog..you say..
“..the Greens voted for it because Caucus actually supported what it was doing, with the exemption of this taxi/bus business…”
that makes it even worse..a rush of blood to the head would be sorta excusable..but they all knew the negative human costs of this.?.but they voted for it anyway..?.’cos it had some other bits they liked..?
i am gobsmacked here…
are you telling us these are the criterea used by green mps when deciding legislation that will have negative human rights results on some…?(in this case ex-cons..not many votes/much sympathy there..eh..?..an easy target)
that they will vote for crap legislation that they know will hurt such a politically underrepresented minority…because they support some other aspect of that legislation..?
gizzafeckinbreak here..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 17th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Edge,
By arguing against any sort of appeal procedure Marc was arguing exactly what you are: pretending that because we can’t be 1000% percent sure one of these offenders won’t offend in the future, we can’t risk letting any of them be a driver. But we can’t be 1000% sure of anyone. It’s an absurd argument.
This claim is where Marc Alexander and rationality part company:
“We cannot know which serious sexual offenders will offend again”
That’s only true in the trivial sense that we cannot know of anyone at all whether or not they will, one day, commit a sexual offence. You can play that kind of epistemological game if you want. Then for a follow-up you can worry that you can’t really know the world exists and you’re not a brain in a vat being fed fake sensory data by a mad scientist. But it’s pointless.
We can have very good knowledge of whether someone’s history of sexual offending is such that it makes them more likely than a general member of the public to commit a sexual offence. We can do that because we have this advanced thing called “statistics”.
Statistically the chance of re-offending increases greatly for those who offend against children when they themselves are older, who offend against male children, who offend against those outside their family and those who offend serially. It also increases if the situation is repeated: eg, if a taxi-driver who raped a customer keeps being a taxi-driver. Most of that’s just common sense (though the bit about male victims increasing recidivism rates did surprise me). Drag in some true experts and a decent screening procedure wouldn’t be rocket science.
Consider the guy whose offence is that, at age 16, he bonked a 15-year old - who he later married and has been married to for 30 years, with no hint of infidelity. Are you seriously arguing that we have no knowledge that he’s unlikely to reoffend?
I’m somewhat ambivalent about GE. But even I can see that your analogy fails. The arguments re GE rely on evidence that it may, indeed, be bad for you and bad for the environment. It’s not just a “oh, we’re so pig ignorant that we should just ban it” argument.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
by the way..just as an aside…do you think over the next little while frog..you could possibly prevail upon those green members of parliament whose portfolios cover major threads of discussion in this forum to possibly deign to communicate with us…?..every once in a while..?
i really feel there is a need for the green mps to do more than pay lip service to the democracies afforded/enabled by these new technologies..
and no..i’m not suggesting they should be at immediate beck and call..to all and sundry..
but i really hope the practice of saying nothing to us about anything at all on this
forum…(ahem…paid for/supported by us..as taxpayers..)..does not continue through this next term of parliament…
why is there this apparent reluctance for mps to talk/engage with us here..?..(or anywhere else for that matter..)
wouldn’t that be the really ‘green thing to do’..?..to engage in ongoing dialogue with the people who worked for/put you there/support and fight for green ideals..the green voters…and activists..?
whereas..the opposite to that communication/dialogue advance..the staus quo…is just the opposite..very ‘ungreen’..eh..?
do the mps feel they don’t have to/want/to/need to..talk/engage with us…?
and if those attitudes are present..next question is ..huh..?
and please don’t come bouncing back with tales of huge/excessive workloads for mps..the ‘they don’t have the time’ argument dosen’t really wash..eh..?..(this is a very efficient way to speak directly to a great number of people….if nothing else..so that imperative over-rides the ‘too busy’ one..eh..?
i guess the first thing to look at is that whole concept of mp’s talking to/with us..outside of election time…(not only when we are (obviously) needed.).but also between elections..?
i mean..if they don’t talk to us here..where exactly do they talk to/with us..?..do we have to monitor the press releases on scoop if we want some idea how our mp’s feel about ongoing/new issues and concerns..?
this is old/school politics..this ignoring of us betweeen elections..the greens are all about new/school politics..aren’t they..?
and as an aside on the aside..as far as this venue is concerned..it is the best one to engage on..(surely mp’s don’t need some password/membership protected forum in which to speak….?..)
most of the time they are gagging for media coverage…i guess they haven’t yet got their heads around the reality that frogblog is part of the new media..
and that frogblog has the potential to become an essential component of that new media..?..and an important tool/forum for the advancment of green ideas/ideals..?..
having dialogue/response from the mp’s..(when appropriate.)..would be a compelling component of that mix…and would help it build both audience and credibility…
that and the democracy/dialogue imperative are compelling reasons for..eh..?
and the reasons against this happening..are..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)..
(frog..i am sure i and more than a few others would like a response to the questions/ideas raised in this comment…ta..!..)
cheers..phil…
January 17th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
icehawk - can you identify your source. It would be helpful for an unrelated project. Thanks!
January 17th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
jgg - a sort of PS to phil re voting. Generally the Greens try to take a positive view of things. Before you condemn the Greens for voting for a bill but against a part of it you need to consider what it contains overall.
It seems a legitimate position to say we tried, we lost, lets support the good bits. This of course requires a case by case analysis and in this case on balance the Greens voted in favour. We had after all pushed them to get any sort of appeal provisions included!
January 17th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
so jgg)..that’s it..!..that’s what passes for an explanation of why the green mp’s all voted for ths piece of repressive/retrospective..and blindly unfair legislation…?..all the while knowing it was just that..?
just where do they draw the bloody line….?
my gobsmackedness continues..unabated….
anyone else got any concerns about this one..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)…
January 17th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Sorry, sorry for the hold-up on several posts tonight, I’ve just unblocked something in the plumbing…
January 18th, 2006 at 1:04 am
phil, chill out,
“are you telling us these are the criterea used by green mps when deciding … they will vote for crap legislation … because they support some other aspect of that legislation..?”
yes.
the Greens have made abundantly clear over the years that this is exactly how they decide to vote on bills, if the balance of the bill is good, but only some parts are bad, they will vote for the bill.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:08 am
stuey…this is not just a matter of “..only some parts are bad..”
this has had a direct impact..devestating a large number of people..ripping away their means of income/living/supporting their families….in a most unjust manner..and our green mps voted for this to happen..
ii mean…did the mps screw-up..?..not take as much notice as they should have..?
how can you/they defend what they have done here….(reprospective legislation..eh..?..that nasty little pandoras’ box..eh..?..)
duynhoven can come out and say “we screwed up…we didn’t think this through..”…and you trot out saying “move right along..there’s nothing to see here..?”
ahem..sorry..there most definitely is something to see here..
and you blithly telll me i should ‘chill out..’?..these are peoples lives stuey..not just a paragraph/a couple of lines in a bill…
‘..?
hey..it’s the old question stuey…?
“they came for the ex-cons..i did nothing..”
maybe you can just blithe away stuey..after all..they are only ex-cons..who gives a feck anyway..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 18th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Phil - I think you need to look at the law.
The only people who can’t potentially get a licence reinstated are murderers (manslaughters ?is that a word? can) and those who committed sexual offences punishable by a maximum of more than 7 years in prison. The problem we are seeing now relate to the fact that sex crimes were very loosely defined 30 or 40 years ago. For example, unlawful carnal knowledge covered everything from paedophilia to sleeping with someone aged 15 and 3/4 when you were 16.
Without going through the whole of this piece of legislation on the blog, I’d just ask you to consider that most legislation is like this - a mix of good and bad. Sometimes the Greens for bills, sometimes against. But few would argue we ought to vote against better speed enforcement, stronger penalties on drunk driving and better control on vehicle noise (all of which are policy) in order to protest at murderers not being allowed to drive taxis. That is how it would have been painted, and it is a potential political millstone. We made our point clearly and got roundly criticised for it.
Now I’m not arguing everything gets decided on short-term political impact but it is a reality for a political party. Its a balancing act - you can disagree with the balance struck in this case but I don’t think our final vote represents a sellout of civil liberties etc. The Bill was not dependent on our vote - if it was it wouldn’t have proceeded in its present form. In the end a choice was made. That is the everyday business of parliamentary politics.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:17 am
and jgg..you would have to say that this time they got it wrong..i refer you again to the admission by harry duynhoven….
and that you weren’t essential to the bills’ passing only strengthens the case for the greens to have stood up and said..”we like 90% of this bill..but we have strong concerns over the human rights aspects of this part of it..and this is why we are voting against this..”
you said..”..That is how it would have been painted..”
jgg..are you telling us the green mp’s and their suppport staff don’t have the abilities/nous to be able to explain this..?.
are you all just victims..?..of others’ painting..?..how plaintive..gizzafeckinbreak here..eh..?..(and no..i don’t want to buy a bridge..)
and of course..with the wisdom now afforded by hindsight..had the greens stood up on this principle..(as they should have)..they would now be gathering kudos for being the only sensible voice at the table…?
yet ..you compound this error (cf admission by duynhoven) by continuing to defend this mistake..?….that in itself is disturbing evidence of a denial/seige mentality around your kneck of the woods..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 18th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
I don’t think the Government is saying the whole bill was a mistake, only this bit - something the Greens said at the time and are now acknowledged as having been right. So I am not sure in what way this represents denial/seige or in what way we are not getting kudos.
If I may be so bold I think some of your response is influenced by spin. We have had stories of how hard done-by some people are. This is exactly what the Greens warned about.
But at the time there were stories about repeat sexual offenders driving taxis and people being assaulted. I don’t recall anyone on this blog or elsewhere actually cheering on our stance. Indeed Mike received some criticism from within the Greens. Arguing human rights in this context gets very short shrift, especially if you add to it voting against measures to reduce the road toll.
And we have relatively little control over how we are perceived on an issue like this which is seen (rightly or wrongly) as fringe rather than core Green.
So I think the retrospective moral outrage is a little misplaced. The Greens views were seen as extreme in the prevailing context, and the point had already been clearly made. As on many bills, the Greens lost on a particular issue and decided that the rest of the bill deserved support.
If the party voted against every bill that contained even one thing with which we disagreed we would simply have a reputation as naysayers who throw the baby out with the bathwater. Far from being seen as positive politicians we would simply be seen as critics who “dance on the head of a pin”.
The Green Party has always taken a strong stance on human rights issues. But it is always a balance each time. You can disagree with the balance in a specific case but the need for balancing doesn’t change.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
jgg..you said..”..And we have relatively little control over how we are perceived on an issue like this..”
i’m sorry..i just don’t buy this passive/victim role you are attempting to spin….(for the second time.)
you have a cluster of mp’s who are now experienced at the ways of that world..
you have the forum of parliament..
and you have a mainstream media that no longer ignores you..
plus you have a media division….(those skilled in the ‘dark arts’..eh..?..)
are you telling us that all of these aren’t up to the job..?..
i didn’t think so..
are you trying to tell us that the greens are just at the mercy of what anyone else says about them..?
i didn’t think so…
i repeat..duynhoven can admit to a screw-up…why do you have such a problem fronting up for your share of that screw-up..?
(and even possibly an admission that ‘yeah..maybe we should give more weight to human rights complications/implications wrought by any legislation we are considering..’..)
are you above human error..or just spinning out of habit..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and..um..on a purely use of english language basis..jgg..(and i know you aren’t uneducated..)
.i’m not sure if your attempted bounce-back on the-head-of-a-pin actually works..in the sense of not really making sense..(ahem..just thought i’d point that out..)..(possibly drawing a long bow..but i dunno..)
January 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
So if I understand your position correctly: The Greens ought to have voted against the Bill and explained why - and this would have been politically effective, as well as providing moral credit now.
I disagree with both parts of your thesis for the reasons outlined above. I’m not spinning, just explaining. I can’t really explain more clearly than I already have that the context was different then from now and what you propose would not have worked, IMHO.
As to apologies - you would like the Greens to apologise for voting for a bill, parts of which they said they opposed, which also contained significant measures they supported. All I can ask is that you reread my previous post.
So that’s it from me on this topic.
Peace Be.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
jgg - I think what you’re saying is if Green’s could’ve actually influenced the outcome by voting against the bill (and used that as a lever to get it amended), then they would’ve, which sounds like a pragmatic position to me. You have a finite amount of energy after all. I wonder if there’s a role for abstaining in this situation to protest poorly drafted legislation (creating totally forseeable inequities is mad). Anyhow, thx for the clarification.. it’s great this site can be a channel for that.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
jgg..close it down..exit..if you will..
yes..the greens should have voted against it..and clearly explained/made an issue of the human rights breachs then..not share the shame now..
(y’know..?..that old mantra..”be part of the solution..not part of the problem..”..)
and should not those advising/counselling our mp’s have seen this little landmine…?.and argued against voting for it?…i mean..won’t you even admit that..in hindsight..?
is this not what many of us expect the green mp’s to be doing..?..being watchdogs for the rest of us around issues like this..(let’s not forget we are talking human rights abuses here..against our citizens..enacted under the approval/vote of the green mp’s..?..if they don’t stand up against this …who the feck does..?
y’know..you can take expediency/accomodation just so far…then you tip over to the dark side…(worth remembering..eh..?..that one..?..)
you said..”..the context was different then from now and what you propose would not have worked..”
now..if i could just prevail upon you to respond one more time..i am confused by that assertion….
how is the human rights context of this different now from then..?
how was what is clearly wrong/a screw-up now…ok then..?
i must be missing something here..(i am not being a smart-arse..i really don’t get it/can’t see it..)
and yes..what would be wrong with the green mp’s going..”yeah we screwed up on that one..we’ll have to try and make sure it dosen’t happen again..”
i mean..would they bleed if they did that…?
i don’t think any of us expect omnisience from them…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 19th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
and just one more umbrella point on all this…..
given that the greens were founded on the ideals of doing politics a new way…and (supposedly) embracing consensus-seeking..open dialogue..the many voices of opinions/ideas..yada..yada..yada..
can someone with a grip on the timeline/history of the party possibly point out for us just when it was those original ideals /aims tipped over into the current green party ethos……that of equating dissent with disloyalty..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 19th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
OK sigh seeing you asked - by context, I mean political context. The political context at the time the bill was passed was: “Greens opposed making taxi passengers safe”. The context now is “Honest hardworking people being punished for technical crimes decades ago”. The issue which is now the cause of so much concern was recognised and seen as an acceptable price to pay by the bulk of the parties in Parliament. It was only the Greens who objected.
This is less obviously a clear cut human rights issue than you make out - sexual offenders do tend to be repeat offenders and many reasonable people made a legitimate case for making sure such offenders don’t get alone with vulnerable people. The Greens did point out that the approach taken was too extreme and did not make people any safer than the Greens proposal.
Again you have to look at bills in their entireity - at third reading you only get one vote. Making it easier to get speeding motorists and drunk drivers off the road is an important positive step towards creating a safer roading system - which is also arguably a human rights issue.
I have trouble understanding the issues in the rest of the post - the Greens WERE the people who spotted this problem, raised it and spoke out about it at the time. The law may well get changed in the way we originally suggested. So I am not sure what was missed by MPs or their advisors. Mostly we are just getting media credit now for being right.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
oh..i see..by context you mean spin/perception…..(why didn’t you say that..?)
and once again..you paint the greens as victims to/of the whims/spins of others…
sorry..still don’t buy that..why do you appear to be so scared of what others will say…?.and so in doubt of the green teams’ abilities to counter any negative spin…?
and how you can try to have it both ways….claiming credit for saying it is an unjust/wrong law..yes..but then you vote for it..!..what the feck does that say about the integrity of your original opposition..?..apart from anything else..?
and what makes that example of walking contradiction all the more puzzling is that the green vote wasn’t needed to pass the bill…so therin lay your opportunity to actually have it both ways..
to stand in opposition/abstain…on those valid grounds..and using that to strengthen /promote the green message..y’know..to differentiate…and yet still have the bill pass with the content you support..
um..was that strategy even aired/entertained as an option..?
and if not..why not..?
(and may i say..your resolute determination to admit no possible error..when even the bills’ author duynhoven says parts of it are a dogs’ breakfast…dosen’t induce admiration for sticking to your guns..but is perhaps indicative of a ‘we can possibly do no wrong..and even if we did..there is no way we will admit it” ethos..which is bloody disturbing/unsettling…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Phil, I’m nowhere near Parliament, but I can see that sometimes compromises are necessary. I believe the term is “swallowing rats”. The Greens swallow fewer than most, but it is unavoidable I reckon. If you don’t want to do that, you practice your politics outside of Parliament and political parties.
If the Greens had voted against the bill then others would have criticised them for not voting for something that enacted their policy.
You may be disturbed/unsettled, but I’m reassured by this approach, shows the Greens are more pragmatic than most people give them credit for.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Phil
“can someone with a grip on the timeline/history of the party
that of equating dissent with disloyalty..?”
ROTFLOL.
Get a grip man.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
FYI, Keith has just put out another release on this, see http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9499.html
January 19th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Sigh - as I have said before voting against could be seen as undermining the Greens to no end in a “context” that was not sympathetic to our argument. The Greens make these calls all the time.
Surely the election campaign illustrated that the Greens cannot set the agenda on all issues?
I have already said you can disagree with the specific balancing act that was made but a balance of some sort is inevitable. You think the Greens made the wrong call. I think that it reflected the political context of the time and that such an approach is an inevitable part of politics. Hindsight is a great thing but not much help in making decisions.
As for what individual MPs or advisors thought - well the thing about collective responsibility is that you all share responsibility for the final decision no matter what you argued (unless you opt out under consensus rules).
January 19th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Phil:
I’m going to get expelled from the VRWC for this, but I’m going to stand up for the Green caucus here. Have you ever held elected office in any political party? I have, and you know something - you don’t always get your own way. Sometime it’s just because you don’t have the numbers - majority rule is a bitch.
Other times, it because the other side gamed the system and there’s no way around it. You can’t say the Greens didn’t try and have an amendment (one I’d have supported with minor tweaks to the language if I’d been on the committee, BTW) inserted at the select committee stage. Why was it rejected?
And sometimes, you just have to swallow hard and accept a compromise because you don’t want to throw out the 90% that’s right. Look, I don’t blame you for being pissed off - I don’t like the way dozens, perhaps even hundreds of people, will be deprived of their livelihoods because of a situation that could have been avoided so easily. And I sure as crap don’t like Harry Dynhoven basically shrugging his shoulders and saying “shit happens” and those affected have to be patient. (Well, when “shit happened” to you, Harry, Parliament secured your job by ramming though a bill in less that three days under extreme urgency.)
All I’m saying is direct your anger in the right direction. In this case, I don’t think bagging the Parliamentary Greens is fair.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
fer gawds sake Phil, are you a troll?
January 19th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
no stuey..i’m not a fecking troll..and feck you for saying it..and aren’t you just the walking epitome of the ‘dissent =disloyalty’ school of thought..?
“nothing to see here”..eh..?..sorry..there is..
and craig..i’m not talking about someone getting their own way….
i’m talking the dogs’ breakfast piece of legislation the green mps’ voted for..despite knowing it would do to a group of nz’ers jobs.human rights..
and i don’t think it is out of line to point that out and suggest that maybe lessons could be learnt from this..but no..i am stonewalled…
and craig..?..just who else should i talk to about this..?..apart from the people who voted for it….?….and i am not bagging them..i am asking questions..is that banned now stuey..?..eh..?
fastbike..you obviously know stuff-all about the party..and how that ‘dissent is disloyalty’ ethos rules…and drives people away..and is.. really..crippling…
i repeat..they could have abstained..explaining the reasons for that exemption..and made an issue of the human rights failings in the legislation..
could someone take a moment and explain the failings of that strategy/idea..?..
y’know..political parties sometimes do that sort of thing…turn to the public..via the media..to right perceived wrongs…
do i really have to tell you this…?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
No, phil u, you “don’t really have to tell us this”.
However, you’ve told us, and we’ve read it …
Now, for your own sake, please give it a rest!
eredwen
January 20th, 2006 at 7:23 am
eredwen..i was wondering who would rise to that bait..you were on my shortlist..
democracy/free-speech eh..?…it’s an uncomfortable beast isn’t it..?
and hey eredwen….my layout/grammer style isn’t the norm…so you should be able so see my words from a distance…just don’t read them..give it a swerve….it’s easy..eh..?
(interesting how your comments are a mix of empty boosting what others have said…and ad hominems such at this….and very little else..)
i look forward to the day you are able to contribute more..:)
phil(whoar.co.nz
November 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
you wouldn’t read about it!
o.k. i just did read about it.
but we don’t hear of it for some reason.
if someone could get to the bottom of the inability of parties like the greens to adequately publicize stuff like this i guess we’d have the answer to why the right wing can win elections