Maxim Institute - real issues - No 194
GET REAL ABOUT YOUTH CRIME
A HYBRID DEMOCRACY
HOW FREE IS FREE SPEECH?
IN THE NEWS: A NOTABLE INNINGS FOR JOHN HOWARD
GET REAL ABOUT YOUTH CRIME
Andrew Becroft, principal judge of the Youth Court, this week drew attention to New Zealand's burgeoning youth crime
rate. Judge Becroft points out that the dramatic increase in violent assaults over the past decade is at the serious end
of the spectrum, and contrasts with a generally stable picture for other less violent forms of youth crime. His question
demands an answer. Why, he asks, are young people becoming more violent?
Maori Party co-leader Dr. Pita Sharples is calling on parents and communities to "get real about youth crime",
emphasising that reversing the social disconnection and isolation of many young people lies with parents and whanau
"taking responsibility" and not leaving it to government. Youth crime is our problem, not Helen Clark's.
Dr. Sharples insightfully locates the capacity to care in parents and families, not government agencies. He said, "The
last thing whanau want is for the state to intervene, and take actions which can ultimately destroy the nature of whanau
relationships .... Building strong communities is not the responsibility of the police, the courts, CYFS, WINZ etc. It
is families who have to get real about the behaviour of their own." He exhorts parents "If your kids are roaming around
town, round them up. If they've got weapons, then take the weapons off them. Show the kids you care, by intervening and
stopping their anti-social behaviour."
Parents love their children in a way that a police officer or a social worker never can. Ultimately, a strong, cohesive
and compassionate society is built by families working together, not by expanded government programmes. Parents,
families and communities are able to build character and responsibility in their young, to provide connection and
belonging.
Dr. Sharples is right to say "It all comes back to whanau". "If any intervention is to be successful ... [it must be
about] inspiring
whanau to take on their responsibilities to their children". Dr. Sharples lays down a tough and vital challenge.
A HYBRID DEMOCRACY
The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill has received scant attention in the media, yet as New Zealand Herald columnist
Jim Hopkins pointed out, the Bill reaches to the very heart of our democracy by challenging the nature of
representation. Submissions on the Bill, commonly known as 'the party hopping Bill', closed this week and will be
considered by a Select Committee.
Under the provisions of the Bill, an MP who resigns from, or is forced out of, their party is unable to remain in
Parliament for the remainder of the Parliamentary term. These provisions are similar to those of the 2001 Electoral
(Integrity) Amendment Act which expired in September 2005.
Under MMP, a party is allocated list MPs according to the proportion of the total party vote it receives. The rationale
for the Bill is that if an MP leaves their party, the proportion of MPs from different parties in Parliament changes,
which violates the wishes the people expressed at the previous election. If MMP was a purely proportional system, this
logic would at least be consistent. However, the New Zealand system is a hybrid, with constituency MPs, a remnant from
the old system, still remaining.
The old "First Past the Post" electoral system was premised on the idea that citizens voted for a representative,
someone who would apply their reason, intelligence, understanding, character and conscience when deciding the best
position to take on issues. Parliament was comprised solely of people who were elected in for who they were, not simply
because of the party they belonged to.
With the introduction of MMP, the rationale under which individuals enter Parliament has become clouded. Some MPs enter
simply because their party wants them there; others win a seat because individual electorates have voted for them to
represent their constituency. The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill fails to distinguish between these two types of
MPs.
Ultimately treating the two equally undermines the very basis of the rationale for constituency MPs. It assumes that all
MPs should vote on party lines and ignores the fact that constituency MPs were chosen to represent a specific group of
people.
The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill highlights a vital question: do people vote for an individual or for a party? A
system based on inconsistent answers to this question cannot help but undermine democracy.
To read the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, please visit:
HOW FREE IS FREE SPEECH?
Over recent weeks, the boundaries of free speech have been well and truly tested. Some commentators have argued that the
boundaries have been stretched too far, so how free is free speech really?
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. In New Zealand, there are approximately ten laws that operate to prohibit
certain kinds of speech. Laws currently restrict expression in areas such as privacy, race relations, human rights,
defamation, censorship, telecommunications and broadcasting.
For example, words that are likely to "excite hostility or bring into contempt" any group on the grounds of colour, race
or ethnic origin are prohibited under the Human Rights Act and words that are intended to "threaten, alarm or insult"
are also prohibited under the Summary
Offences Act. The Defamation Act protects against personal libel and slander where comments are not true and do not
express an honest and genuine opinion.
The Broadcasting Act and the codes of practice prescribed by it restrict speech that "encourages denigration of, or
discrimination against, sections of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age ... or as a
consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political beliefs". These laws frequently operate to
prohibit or punish speech that is found to be in breach.
When free speech deeply offends, there are often calls for further government intervention and more legislation to
further restrict freedom of speech. However, it is important to understand that freedom of speech is already tempered by
the restrictions above. Any further restrictions on freedom of expression must be balanced with the desire to allow the
advancement of knowledge and the discovery of truth in a free and democratic society like New Zealand.
IN THE NEWS: A NOTABLE INNINGS FOR JOHN HOWARD
Thursday marks John Winston Howard's ten year anniversary as elected
Prime Minister of Australia, a record second only to Sir Robert Menzies in the '50s and '60s. For a man generally
acknowledged as having little or no personal charisma, Howard's charm seems to be his personal humility and
ordinariness.
His decade in power has seen Australia's economy go from strength to strength, surviving the Asian downturn. Howard has
delivered tax cuts, record unemployment, reform of the education and health sectors, and a strong sense of national
security. However, his tenure to date has not been without its controversies, including his country's involvement in the
war in Iraq and criticism of the government's treatment of illegal immigrants.
Talking about his achievement, John Howard has been typically modest:
"I can say it's a 10 year achievement for a team. I've been fortunate to be the captain of the team but I have had a
very good team."
To read an interview with John Howard on Radio 2UE on Monday, visit:
TALKING POINT
In his Parliamentary speech on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill in December 2005, Maori Party co-leader Pita
Sharples said:
"We do not need the gorilla of laws, to frighten us or to threaten us in order to guide our behaviour. Ours is not a
party which uses fear, intimidation or bullying as a means of achieving discipline. Discipline must come from within."