Blue Liberals Newsletter: September 2009
Workshop Report - the Bill of (Not Quite) Rights
The Wellington Workshop on the Bill of Rights was well-attended by a mix of MPs, and Bluelibs members and supporters.
There was a strong consensus on several issues, not least about the omission from the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) of a property rights protection. Several participants expressed concern about the ease with which government can take or trespass upon private property and a couple of chilling examples involving regional government were highlighted.
One former MP reported that the property rights were left out of the Bill of Rights Act as a result of a misguided view on the part of Labour (the government at the time) that protecting property rights was somehow protecting the interests of the "boss class".
The response to this from more than a couple of people in the after match discussion was that the surest way of stopping social mobility and keeping people poor was to allow the state to trespass on property rights at will. Those of us with Scots, Irish or Maori ancestry will have some view on that I'm sure.
There was also a view that the BORA should be strengthened. The present Attorney-General is doing his job in highlighting instances where rights are being trespassed on by proposed legislation, but not every occupant of that office has been (or will be) that assiduous.
Our speaker, Dr Andrew Butler, talked about what is done in Canada and elsewhere. There are, he said, a number of things that can be done that strengthen protections but which don't limit the sovereignty of Parliament. Simply dealing with the bad drafting would be a start. Another would be to allow the courts to refuse to apply legislation inconsistent with the BORA unless Parliament has expressly said that the legislation should operate in spite of the breach. This at least would raise the awareness of when there was an issue and spare the Attorney-General from always having to be the spoilsport of the piece
It was an interesting and thought-provoking workshop. It is also one that we would like to repeat in other centres. If you're interested please let us know by contacting Laura Dalby on laura.dalby@national.org.nz.
What do you think?
Feedback … about folic acid in bread
In our last update, we questioned the justification of a compulsory inclusion of folic acid in bread. We weighed up the public harm versus the trespass on personal choice and concluded that personal choice should win out.
Not everyone agreed. There was well-considered feedback from one reader in particular that we had underplayed the public benefits. We were told that we ought to have made more of the precedent set by the inclusion of iodine in salt to prevent goitre and food fortification to prevent rickets.
Good point, but the difference is that in the case of iodine and food fortification is that the upside benefits are well-known, as are the down-sides of inaction and intervention. What we know about the proposed folic acid inclusion is that it wouldn't be enough to deliver the benefits and may in fact induce harm.
Another good point our correspondent raised was that because "people are too slack to take precautions" there are impacts on kids and thus the state ought to intervene. No argument there. Impact on others most certainly should be part of the calculation and personal freedoms must always be balanced against any public harm that may result. But again we come back to the question of whether what is proposed in this case will actually address the harm and not cause others in the process. That remains something for debate.
Where we disagree strongly with our correspondent is the suggestion that we are confusing a liberty issue with a public health one. The two things are not distinct. The fact that there may be a public health benefit from an intervention is not a trump card that can be used to justify whatever imposition the state or a health official might come up with. All state interventions, regardless of type, must be balanced against competing interests or consequences.
There would, for example, be undoubted benefits to individuals, their families and the Crown accounts if everybody exercised for an hour a day. Would our correspondent suggest that forcing people to do it would not involve an issue of liberty? Similarly, as many a social worker and doctor will know, there would be public health benefits in stopping some people from having children. Doesn't that too give rise to some very real questions of freedom?
The bottom line is that all state interventions must be justified and balanced against the downside of limiting choice and freedom. If the case can be made, fair enough, but the threshold needs to be very high.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. The debate is useful. Because of it a lot more people know about why they should have folic acid when pregnant than did before.
Ed
Quote
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”
Thomas Jefferson
Upcoming Events
Don't forget the 6th Annual Ralph Hanan Dinner.
Guest Speaker Hon Dr Michael Bassett
When: Friday 11 September
Where: Wellington Club
Note: Seats are limited
RSVP to james.christmas@parliament.govt.nz by Monday 31 August
Discussion groups
Interested in joining a Bluelibs discussion group in your region? Contact Laura on laura.dalby@national.org.nz.
Workshop Report - the Bill of (Not Quite) Rights
The Wellington Workshop on the Bill of Rights was well-attended by a mix of MPs, and Bluelibs members and supporters.
There was a strong consensus on several issues, not least about the omission from the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) of a property rights protection. Several participants expressed concern about the ease with which government can take or trespass upon private property and a couple of chilling examples involving regional government were highlighted.
One former MP reported that the property rights were left out of the Bill of Rights Act as a result of a misguided view on the part of Labour (the government at the time) that protecting property rights was somehow protecting the interests of the "boss class".
The response to this from more than a couple of people in the after match discussion was that the surest way of stopping social mobility and keeping people poor was to allow the state to trespass on property rights at will. Those of us with Scots, Irish or Maori ancestry will have some view on that I'm sure.
There was also a view that the BORA should be strengthened. The present Attorney-General is doing his job in highlighting instances where rights are being trespassed on by proposed legislation, but not every occupant of that office has been (or will be) that assiduous.
Our speaker, Dr Andrew Butler, talked about what is done in Canada and elsewhere. There are, he said, a number of things that can be done that strengthen protections but which don't limit the sovereignty of Parliament. Simply dealing with the bad drafting would be a start. Another would be to allow the courts to refuse to apply legislation inconsistent with the BORA unless Parliament has expressly said that the legislation should operate in spite of the breach. This at least would raise the awareness of when there was an issue and spare the Attorney-General from always having to be the spoilsport of the piece
It was an interesting and thought-provoking workshop. It is also one that we would like to repeat in other centres. If you're interested please let us know by contacting Laura Dalby on laura.dalby@national.org.nz.
What do you think?
Feedback … about folic acid in bread
In our last update, we questioned the justification of a compulsory inclusion of folic acid in bread. We weighed up the public harm versus the trespass on personal choice and concluded that personal choice should win out.
Not everyone agreed. There was well-considered feedback from one reader in particular that we had underplayed the public benefits. We were told that we ought to have made more of the precedent set by the inclusion of iodine in salt to prevent goitre and food fortification to prevent rickets.
Good point, but the difference is that in the case of iodine and food fortification is that the upside benefits are well-known, as are the down-sides of inaction and intervention. What we know about the proposed folic acid inclusion is that it wouldn't be enough to deliver the benefits and may in fact induce harm.
Another good point our correspondent raised was that because "people are too slack to take precautions" there are impacts on kids and thus the state ought to intervene. No argument there. Impact on others most certainly should be part of the calculation and personal freedoms must always be balanced against any public harm that may result. But again we come back to the question of whether what is proposed in this case will actually address the harm and not cause others in the process. That remains something for debate.
Where we disagree strongly with our correspondent is the suggestion that we are confusing a liberty issue with a public health one. The two things are not distinct. The fact that there may be a public health benefit from an intervention is not a trump card that can be used to justify whatever imposition the state or a health official might come up with. All state interventions, regardless of type, must be balanced against competing interests or consequences.
There would, for example, be undoubted benefits to individuals, their families and the Crown accounts if everybody exercised for an hour a day. Would our correspondent suggest that forcing people to do it would not involve an issue of liberty? Similarly, as many a social worker and doctor will know, there would be public health benefits in stopping some people from having children. Doesn't that too give rise to some very real questions of freedom?
The bottom line is that all state interventions must be justified and balanced against the downside of limiting choice and freedom. If the case can be made, fair enough, but the threshold needs to be very high.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. The debate is useful. Because of it a lot more people know about why they should have folic acid when pregnant than did before.
Ed
Quote
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”
Thomas Jefferson
Upcoming Events
Don't forget the 6th Annual Ralph Hanan Dinner.
Guest Speaker Hon Dr Michael Bassett
When: Friday 11 September
Where: Wellington Club
Note: Seats are limited
RSVP to james.christmas@parliament.govt.nz by Monday 31 August
Discussion groups
Interested in joining a Bluelibs discussion group in your region? Contact Laura on laura.dalby@national.org.nz.
