Defying the law – Turei now in new territory

OPINION: My previous article commented on the original Turei story which was essentially based on her own decisions of many years ago to obtain government support fraudulently. She has now raised the ante considerably by commenting on other cases of fraud which are recent or current and involve other people – she knows all the details but refuses to “dib them in”. This is very deliberate behaviour which amounts to “thumbing her nose” at the current law and that should not be allowed to go un-noticed whatever the circumstances of the people involved.

It is all intensely political of course and the really interesting question is what the current Government and the department intend to do about it – take action or make negative noises but otherwise largely ignore it. I think Turei has already said she will pay the money back if asked.

The dilemma is the same as before but the stakes are higher. On the one hand, if strict action is taken Turei looks like a martyr and the authorities clumsy and heavy handed – on the other hand, the option of no action makes the Government and authorities look toothless and lacking gumption. I suspect the reaction will be a middle course of action – Ministers will lean on the departments involved to take the same action as they would with anyone else while avoiding direct involvement. Either way, there need to be repercussions for Turei.

Whatever the outcome, the events that have occurred raise a larger issue and that is whether circumstances ever justify the deliberate breaking of the law or the condoning of such action. Strictly speaking the answer should be NO, but history contains many instances of political leaders deliberately flouting laws they consider to be intolerable or unfair, in many cases suffering personally as a result (the civil liberty cases involving Black Americans in the USA are a case in point – with leaders such as Martin Luther King suffering the ultimate penalty) but in so doing prompting a process of change which eventually becomes generally accepted, (I don’t think the Turei case quite falls into this category but I make the general point).

In a democracy, change should occur through the political process with citizens expressing their wish for change by how they vote. And often this works pretty well, as it has in New Zealand. But the reality is that the normal political process can be very slow and often good intentions get modified so they no longer represent the original intent. So the truth is there probably is a place for change by other means – even if it means disobeying the law. But the consequences for those leading the pressure for change can often be severe, and in many ways that is fair enough. It acts as a natural brake on promoting relatively trivial change, or change promoted for personal gain.

By far the best solution is to have political processes which are sensitive to pressure for change and politicians willing to respond to that within the agreed political process. From that point of view, the change to proportional representation has been positive as it does make politicians more sensitive to the mood of the electorate, and minor political parties can act as a conduit for raising options or ideas that would otherwise never see the light of day.

By Bas Walker

This is another of Bas Walker’s posts on GrownUps.  Please look out for his articles, containing his Beachside Ponderings.