Remaining - for just a millisecond, or several, longer - upon matters NZ Inc and political, how refreshing to see NZ First keeping a manifesto commitment (and/or implicit past election promise/undertaking), to wit the '3 Strikes and You're Out' legislation (passed early on during the last National Government's three-term tenure in office). Yes, good on ya's, folk, for standing up - if, like Custer, at the proverbial last minute - and being counted on the need and (deep, heartfelt) desire of ordinary, everyday (read: non-elitist) kiwis to retain said (Act NZ-sponsored) serious offenders' and offences' law indefinitely, at least for the forseeable... . Yes, you've shown your quality, sirs and ladies.
Admittedly, I've learnt over recent weeks how it was initially, originally, Winston's own pet project/proposal way back in the 1990s - though I've intuitively known such law has ever been part and parcel of NZ First's 'get tough' approach on crime (conforming so closely to their basic, long-term philosophy and principles). Granted, they were outside Parliament at the decisive time said law was put on the order paper and progressed through all its parliamentary stages at the outset of the Key Government, but let's just say it was passed into law with the moral (if not actual parliamentary) support of NZ First, being so much part and parcel of their basic approach to law and order as to be indistinguishable from much of their basic policy.
And of course, NZ First writhes in its sleep, no doubt, at any legislation progressed by its political arch-rivals, Act NZ, Winston Peters holding an inveterate antipathy to the party's essentially pro-neo liberal, Rogernomics' and Ruthanasian ideology - but at least he's been consistent therein for the past thirty some years, unlike some of his past Labour Party contemporaries. So all credit to him and his colleagues for - belatedly, if eventually - coming out publicly and declaring they were unable to support such a rollback of popular, Key Government legislation; thus putting on the record that NZ First's support cannot simply be taken for granted by the new Government, and especially its justice-reforming/crusading former leader, Justice Minister Andrew Little.
But credit too to Mr Little for seeing fit to launch a deep, wide-ranging review of how to deal with NZers' penchant for 'locking up and throwing away the key', as PM Peters put it during Parliament's Question Time the other week. Just continuing with things as the last Government had left them was not an option, was no acceptable solution to NZ Justice in the long-term. That is, simply building more and more prisons and locking up more and more lower-level offenders in *some mad scheme to follow in the steps of incarceration-mad America is no answer, as New Zealand's ever-burgeoning prison population makes increasingly only too apparent.
And it will not do, either, for the newfangled National Party and its justice spokespeople - Judith Collins and Mark Mitchell in particular - and even its deputy, Paula Bennett, in this particular instance - to seek to turn even Mr Little's well-intentioned goal of dealing to NZ's exploding imprisonment rate into an essential falsehood by appealing to entrenched and understandable popular fears; somehow - and quite erroneously - suggesting he (or more correctly his Government) intends releasing dangerous crims willy-nilly back into the community with neither proper plan nor procedure to reintegrate them successfully.
But I don't deny National perhaps does have some credibility in suggesting this new Government - or rather its Labour party rump (and especially its Green party component) - is indeed **congenitally soft on crime, such congenital wishy-washiness no doubt arising from the fact that so few politicians seem to ever have had any even indirect association with serious crimes and'/or criminals let alone the victims thereof; much less any direct personal experience thereof. Which was undoubtedly how the 'ole line about liberals being conservatives who haven't yet been mugged originally came about.
As one who experienced ***just such while on a three-year sojourn in the U S of A 25-some years ago, I can assure readers that it wakes one up to reality and can indeed have a quite a sobering effect upon any previously highly academic political theorizing. Indeed, can it what.
*/**My characterization (or paraphrases) of their respective thoughts as expressed in speeches, I grant; with some elaboration into my own characteristic thoughts and expressions.
***Admittedly, if such is possible, without the physical component of such (i.e. mugging). Though that undoubtedly sounds like an utter contradiction-in-terms, let's just say that I was ****accosted in a very physical (if un-'violent') fashion, which - all things being equal - could've well seen me forthwith assigned six feet under, I kid you not. Yes, entirely sufficient to quickly *****'............ the mind'.
****'To approach and address', according to my trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary, and 'to greet and approach, often offensively', in the words of my Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary. So you indeed 'learn something new every day', as they say, as this fellow did far worse, he grabbed me and held me firm by throwing his arms across my waist and gripping me firmly in his powerful 'embrace'. Before proceeding to lead me into an open alleyway and demanding I spill all my worldly monies out of my pockets or I'd be in some pretty deep doggy doo-doo, not to put too fine a point upon it.
*****Sorry, the appropriate term temporarily escapes my recollection.
No comments:
Post a Comment