Two M.P.s voice views on the law

Press, 7 August 1978, Page 16

Two M.P.s voice views on the law

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Comment from the Capital

A deep concern for the law, and some misgivings concerning its interpretation in New Zealand, were expressed by speakers during the National Party conference recently. The feeling was that certain aspects of law interpretation and enforcement were changing, not necessarily for the better.

A nostalgic glimpse of New Zealand’s past, and of the power wielded by the “country cop,” unarmed and bicycle-powered, was given by a Maori representative footballer, Mr M. B, Couch, member of Parliament (Wairarapa), who chaired a discussion group. He caused some alarm when he commented: “A clip on the ear at the right time has saved many youngsters from a life of crime.”

But his theme was not that more strong-arm powers should be provided for our policemen. Perhaps he was thinking of the days, not quite past, in which the country policeman was a respected father-figure, whose power and influence extended far more deeply than the letter of his police instructions.

Chairing a discussion group on law and order, Mr Couch began with the plain statement that an increasing proportion of New Zealanders were beginning to doubt that the law was either fair or effective. In a forthright assessment, Mr Couch said: “One side believes that criminals must be frightened out of their evil ways by harsh deterrent punishments, while the other believes we shouldn’t blame the criminal because it’s all the fault of society. The fact that neither

approach has proved effective with all classes of offender is taken to mean, by each set of enthusiasts, that

it wasn't applied strictly enough.” Mr Couch showed dry humour when he added: “Both sides have their successes to point to. Some offenders have been reformed by kindness and good example: on the other hand, no murderer who has been hanged has ever been known to murder again.” The large majority of offenders and potential offenders came somewhere between the two extremes. The problem remained that nobody really knew the answer. This, Mr Couch stressed, led to another growing problem. Violent offenders were brought into court, having injured innocent victims in mind, body or pocket, and were given probation or a token

sentence such as periodic detention “which to most people is something like being kept in after scnool.” Mr Couch made it clear that he was speaking as an individual, not as a committee member, and that his views were his own. “The average reader of newspapers is beginning to believe that the law is there to protect the criminal. Perhaps there is a lack of communication . . . but some of this is caused by the tact that the law doesn’t seem to speak English.” He suggested than an increasing proportion of the population was beginning to doubt that our laws, as applied, were either fair or effective.

“A retailer who opens his shop outside permitted hours is likely to be fined more heavily than a thug with a broken bottle who terrorises a public dance. The law may see mitigating circumstances: the public reads only the headlines, and concludes that it is a more vicious crime to work too hard than to beat someone up.”

Mr Couch’s theme was that the strength of the law came from the support of the people. “That support is wearing thin.” Mr Couch also claimed there was a wide belief that a man who defended himself or his family from unprovoked attack was committing a crime. “No sensible layman will accept this. He knows his first duty is to protect his family. So all he learns is that he cannot trust the law.” He concluded: “The gulf

between the lawbreaker and the law-abiding appears not to be as wide as the gulf between the law enforcers and the general public. As the public cannot find out, and the enforcement authorities do not seem interested in explaining, the gap continues to widen.” “The law is the strength of the community; the people are the strength of the law. It is time those responsible for all aspects of our legal system considered carefully how much of this strength is being lost because of a system which not only does not inform, but also seems deliberately to go out of its way to antagonise those people on whom it relies for support.” It was inevitable that discussion in the committee should be on the plane of “the average bloke.” But concern about the legal system went further than that. A detailed and erudite paper was contributed by the member of Parliament for Birkenhead (Mr J. K. McLay), who is chairman of the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament and also chairman of the National caucus committee ■on justice. Mr McLay believes that a commitment to a constant programme of modernising, clarifying and codifying our law is an essential ingredient of good government. He does not believe that law reform, if it achieves these ends, can be called over-legisla-tion.

(There is no doubt that Mr McLay is destined for higher

things if the National Party is successful in this year's General Election. Aged 33, he has been a practising barrister for some years. Soon after his election in 1975 he received preferment in the party, and could be Minister of Justice in Mr Muldoon’s 1979 Cabinet.) “Our laws are a collection

of rules by which society controls its own conduct, and as such are in constant need of revision, alteration and modernisation as attitudes and public opinions change. He made the point that New Zealand has a good record of law reform, and that the law reform structure is best suited to our present needs. However, improvements are needed: 1. In research facilities (which could be helped by the involvement of “outsiders” in the work of the law reform committee): 2. In the specific in» volvement of suitably qualified lay persons in the work of the committees:

3. In a greater Involvement of the public during the process leading up to the preparation of reports: and 4. In a conscious commitment to the removal of unnecessary and outdated laws from the statute books.

He does not believe that at this stage in our legal development New Zealand needs a full-time Law Reform Commission. "In fact” he reflects, "such a body would be difficult to recruit, and by comparison with the record of consistent law reform over the past fifty years, could meet with quite spectacular failure.” (The law reform committee has examined and reported upon a great deal of legisla t since the present Government came to power. This has included the following bills finally passed: The Education Amendment Act (1976), the Matrimonial Property Act (1976), the Sum* mary Proceedings Amendment Act (1976), the Insurance Law Reform Act (1977), the Contractual Mistakes Act (1977), the Wills Amendment Act (1977), the Trustees Amendment Act (1977) and the Judicature Amendment Act (1977). At present on the order paper for transmission through Parliament is the Evidence Amendment Bill (1978). These are the views of two Government members, one a layman, the other a professional. Generally they have large areas of agreement, though it must be remembered that Mr Couch was talking specifically about law .and order. Mr McLay about law reform generally. The point made by Mr Couch remains valid. The law must be understood, respected and trusted — by all the people.