Democracy archive at Grant Robertson

Archive for the 'Democracy' Category

In defence of democracy

December 9th, 2010

Last night Parliament took away the right to vote from a group of New Zealanders. They are a group of people you might not have much time for, those serving prison sentences of three years or less. Some of them will have done some awful things, some of them will have done a large number of minor things, some of them might well be innocent. All of them will return to our communities one day.

I can understand that there will be many people who will say, ‘good job’, and many who did not realise that there were any prisoners who could vote. But I believe that Parliament taking away their right to vote (actually their right to be on the electoral roll) on the basis of a poorly thought out private members bill, passed by a narrow margain is in my view one of the most shameful things I have witnessed in this Parliament.

There is not much that is more fundamental in a democracy than the right to vote, and it was whisked away last night with barely a justification from the government. A government who that very day had announced a constitutional review that had at its heart the need to only make changes to electoral law if there is a good reason and if there is a consensus.

To me accepting the right to vote for people who challenge our values is one of the greatest tests of being truly committed to democracy. Eliminating that right for some people we consider not worthy, as glibly as was done by the government, is to me an assault on democratic values. As the Bill of Rights Act assessment on this bill notes overriding that right to vote (which itself is part of the Act) requires a high test to be passed. That has not happened here.

Beyond that, the Bill is a cruel hoax on the victims of crime and their families. Not one piece of evidence was provided to show that passing this Bill would stop crimes, or reduce re-offending. It will not make New Zealand a safer place. It will not help rehabilitation or re-integration into society. It creates massive inconsistencies (e.g. people convicted of the same crime, one on home detention, the other in prison will have different rights) and it nearly, accidentally, gave the right to vote to the most serious offenders through a drafting error, until Prof Andrew Geddis, pointed out the mistake.

I try not to lose my temper, in Parliament or in life. But last night I was close to it. (My speech is here) Parliament took away a fundamental right from a group of New Zealanders with barely a word in justification, without a word from the Justice Minister or the Attorney General in the debate. The majority was provided by the ACT Party who gave us a 48 second contribution. Democracy, and those who have fought for it here and overseas, deserve better than that.

Posted in Prisoner Voting, Paul Quinn and Democracy. | 0 Comments

Doing the hard work on crime

April 21st, 2010

Today in the House Paul Quinn’s bill to remove all those in prison at an election from the electoral roll passed its first reading. This is a poorly drafted bill that will do nothing to make our communities safer. As I listened to the speeches from National members it was clearly all part of National trying to portray itself as being tough on crime.

But talking tough on crime is the easy bit. It is popular for sure. The hard work is not talking tough though, it is actually trying to do something to reduce crime and to stop re-offending. That is the kind of work that the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS) have been doing for 132 years, until now as the government has cut their national contract.

Lets be plain here. We must make it a priority to support victims and uphold their rights. But if we want communities to be safer then we also need to focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Because while it might surprise Mr Quinn for most prisoners (particularly those who have been sentenced to less than three years) the purpose of going to prison is to be rehabilitated, albeit that New Zealand has not always done that well with rehabilitation.

Now I am not talking about Graeme Burton and his ilk. But for most prisoners they will re-enter society at some point. This is where PARS does its work. Ensuring there is housing, working with released prisoners to re-integrate, ensuring they dont re-offend, supporting families to stay together. It is not the nicest work. In one provincial city I visited recently PARS have worked with a convicted paedophile who has been released into the community. They make sure that he sticks to his release conditions, go shopping with him and generally keep the community as safe as possible.

As previously noted here, the government has ended PARS national contract. Groups around New Zealand are scrambling to keep going with short term contracts and reduced services. In Wellington, the local PARS group is closing its doors at the end of this week. They have had a drop-in centre that has been a lifeline for released prisoners and their families. That is now gone.

This decision by the government will make our communities less safe. We can not wish away those who have committed crimes. People like PARS do the hard work of trying to turn them around. National has turned their back on PARS and given priority to an irrelevant, rhetorical stance. It is shameful.

Posted in Law and Order and Democracy. | 0 Comments

A dictatorship?

April 21st, 2010

Interesting piece from Campbell Live this evening on the disbanding of E-Can and the disenfranchising of the province with the cancellation of the 2010 election. Good to see the significance of this decision finally being recognised by national media. Remember Nick Smith said one of the reasons he did this was because he was ‘wary of the outcome’ of the election. And it was all done under urgency. In the circumstances you can understand why one of the Councillors in the story feels under National and ACT she is living in a dictatorship.

Posted in Water, Local Government and Democracy. | 0 Comments

Democracy under attack?

March 31st, 2010

That was the headline that greeted readers of the New Zealand Herald for much of 2008. The Electoral Finance Act was a less than perfect piece of legislation, but the hyperbole that surrounded the campaign against it was extraordinary. So where are those who ran this campaign now, in the face of this

The Government has cancelled an October regional council election, depriving 378,512 Kiwis of a vote for the next 3 1/2 years.

That is how the Dominion Post described the government’s decision to replace the elected Council with commissioners, and in a move that defies belief to not hold elections until 2013. That means that the people of the greater Canterbury region will not get a vote along with other local authorities later this year.

Why? Well Nick Smith gives us an insight in this morning’s Timaru Herald

Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners – rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested – was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.

That’s right, Nick Smith is wary of the outcome of an election. That’s right, in Nick Smith’s view you can’t trust democracy. An election can throw up results you don’t like , but that does not mean you get to cancel it!

This has been a really week for democracy (not to mention that last few months in terms of Auckland). Last week amid the understandable focus on mining and welfare changes there was not a lot of debate on the government’s decision to not have a spending cap for the MMP referendum. Despite there being a cap for citizens initiated referenda, there is not one for this one. I well remember the first referendum where Peter Shirtcliffe and his mates poured money into the anti-MMP campaign, and very nearly pulled off a result.

This is an issue of fairness. We have to balance participant equality and participant freedom, and that requires a spending limit.

Posted in Democracy. | 0 Comments

Cooperative Government: A New Approach

February 19th, 2010

One of the things that concerns me the most as a politician is the sense of alientation of individuals and communities about important decisions that affect them. I am a firm believer in representative democracy, and I acknowledge that people do not necessarily want to be constantly consulted about every decision. However I think we as a country, over a very long time, have drifted to the point that a large number of people feel totally disconnected from politics and politicians and how decisions are made about their communities. I also believe that there is an important role for the community in the development and delivery of the services they receive.

These issues are not confined to New Zealand of course. In the UK there have been some very interesting developments at a local level to encourage much greater participation by communities. The latest of these is a proposal to make the Lambeth Council in London a ‘John Lewis Council’. John Lewis was businessman in the early 20th century who developed a business model based on a co-operative approach and profit sharing with employees.

In Lambeth they are looking at a co-operative council with residents helping to runs services, and the possibility of financial involvement further down the line. Some of the key initiatives being considered are

- An “active citizens’ dividend” offering a council tax rebate to those involved in community organisations or mutuals that take responsibility for services.
- Allowing service users and local residents to vote on turning local services such as local primary schools, Sure Start centres and youth clubs into citizen-led mutuals.
- Offering tenants more control of their housing estates by setting them up as co-operatives.
- Setting up “micro-mutuals” for people to use their personalised budgets for care service users.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. The approach is not without its pitfalls, and the capacity of local communities to take on decision making and delivery roles needs to be handled with care. The Labour led Council is keen to differentiate what they are doing from the Tory run Council in Barnet, that has been dubbed, the EasyCouncil because they are using the model of budget airlines, whereby they offer a basic service, with additional services on offer for purchase. The Leader of the Labour Council puts it this way

But while Barnet have come up with a plan to pare back what services they offer, we don’t want to. Instead we’re looking at a different settlement that will move the boundaries of who does what, getting users involved in putting together the services they want. Mutual and co-operative values will be our compass. We’ll give the voters a clear choice – cuts if you vote Tory but with us, not only fewer cuts, but also positive side- effects around community cohesion.”

I think it is entirely possible to have a level of devolution of control and decision making without it being about an ideological crusade about smaller government and cutting services. I will be watching closely to see how this develops.

Posted in Local Government, Democracy and Public Service. | 1 Comment