Maxim Institute - real issues - No. 66
Contents: Gravy train undermines confidence Public sector appointments have been in the news lately, and there's more
at stake than just big payouts. Supreme Court interference Dumping tradition is something many people could accept, but
the implications for common law are more serious. Population does not = Populution A billboard message reveals
assumptions about the value of being human.
Gravy train undermines confidence
New Zealand consistently rates as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. It is surprising then, to discover
the extent of so-called 'snouts in the trough' - largely unpublicised political appointments to public boards,
directorships and committees. In a series of articles this week, political journalist Colin Espiner has revealed some
important findings.
The list for 2002 is comprised of mostly ex-MPs and even unsuccessful parliamentary candidates. Ex-cabinet minister
David Caygill, for example, received $106,500 for heading an electricity inquiry, and an extra $50,000 as chairman of
the ACC; while former Council of Trade Union boss Ken Douglas received $57,346 for three directorships. Labour list
candidate Warren Limburg received $45,000 for sitting on the Human Rights Commission. The list goes on - up to 900 such
appointments are made each year.
Labour promised to scale-down runaway public sector (quango*) appointments after taking office in 1999, but without much
will or effort. None of the beneficiaries of this political patronage are appointed by any open process. Moreover, what
we are witnessing is an expansion of bureaucracy, which left unchecked, threatens the effectiveness of, and public
confidence in government.
In 1979, constitutional lawyer and MP Geoffrey Palmer said it was time to halt the growth of quangos. 'The aim should be
[he said] to eliminate as many as possible and ensure that those which remain are properly accountable to the public
through Parliament and work in a way which serves the public interest. The following questions should be kept in mind in
any such review:
* why can an ordinary department not do the job? * in the case of tribunals, why can't the adjudication be carried out
in the ordinary courts? * in what ways is the quango accountable to parliament and the public? * in the case of each
advisory body, does the record show that it has actually contributed anything of value?
'If these questions are rigorously pursued by a parliamentary committee, many quangos could be killed off, others
reorganised and limits placed upon the creation of new ones.' (Unbridled Power, pp. 38-39).
Well said. What then, can be done? We must be informed and indignant about what's going on and demand that procedures
are opened-up to public scrutiny without patronage. We also do well to remember that ordinary citizens, not politicians,
are the gatekeepers of democracy - we have a right to demand answers to the hard questions.
(*quasi-autonomous national governmental organisations)
Supreme Court interference
Much of the debate over a New Zealand Supreme Court and abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council has been on
what each represents symbolically. But this focus neglects the important foundations of our legal system. Dumping the
right of appeal to the Privy Council will weaken the foundations of common law. Common law has a strong historical base
and has been carefully refined over centuries. Most importantly, it prevents the law from being 'captured' by fashions,
fads or patronage. Removing association with the Privy Council will further isolate New Zealand from the roots of common
law.
Attorney-General Margaret Wilson argues that retaining links with the Privy Council will inhibit the independent
development of law in Commonwealth countries and can be viewed as interference with a country's power to regulate it own
jurisdiction. Increasingly however, New Zealand permits what can be termed 'interference' with a power to regulate its
own jurisdiction from the United Nations. Moreover, we are now party to approximately 1,450 bilateral treaties with
other countries and 1,080 multilateral treaties. Each treaty has not only rights but binding obligations, and nearly 200
Acts of Parliament - more than a quarter of the total number - are required to implement these obligations. Rt. Hon.
Justice Kenneth Keith has observed that this figure shows the 'pervasive effect of international law on our national
law'. If the influence of the Privy Council is removed, judges and Parliament will continue to look to the United
Nations and international treaties will have even greater impact on our national law and ability to be independent.
Population or populution?
The following text appears on an advertising billboard at a major intersection in Christchurch: 'POPULATION =
POPULUTION. The BIGGEST PROBLEM facing our earth is the overpopulating virus called 'mankind'. Be responsible. Have 2
children or less. Pass the message worldwide'.
Aside from the emotive language ('the overpopulating virus'), this is simply untrue. New Zealand's fertility rate has
been below replacement level for 20 of the last 23 years due to a variety of factors and trends: the advancing age of
first-time mothers, smaller family sizes, the liberalisation of abortion services, and so on. Our population has just
reached 4 million - but only because numbers are propped-up by immigration
The billboard suggests that human existence is impure and has no real validity; it's somehow 'unnatural' and
irresponsible - just like pollution. It illustrates a general trend which devalues human life and reduces it to an
economic unit. Abortion and euthanasia are other examples which tell us that human beings have worth only as long as
they are 'useful', or don't interfere with our own plans. Those who oppose this are labelled the enemies of progress.
This is a huge paradox in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary boast.
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK - Norman Douglas
You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements.