Editorial: Political assurances are offered too easily

PM Jacinda Ardern. Photo / File

An irate firearms owner said last week that the problem with the Government collecting sensitive information about and on behalf of us all is the 'She'll be right' attitude that, once again, had proved to be unreliable.

He expressed that view in response to the fact that detailed information about people who had registered to surrender now illegal firearms and firearm parts had been made available, albeit briefly, to anyone who wanted to look for it. We were assured, in response, by the Prime Minister no less, that only one licensed firearms dealer had seen the information, and that while the lapse was regrettable, no harm had been done.

That might be true. And it might not. The trouble with government assurances, and the current administration has made it an art form, is that they are often designed to placate us, as opposed to being based on facts. There was no argument that this security breach, attributed to an overseas contractor, should not have happened, but one licensed firearms dealer, who we were told had been doing nothing sinister when he found thousands of firearms owners' names, addresses, firearms details, licence details and more, did not a crisis make. We will no doubt find out in the fullness of time if that is true.

Even if it is, the breach has provided grist for the mill of those who claim that the Government's proposed firearms register will do more harm than good. And once again it casts doubt over the Government's ability to protect information that it promises to protect, but increasingly regularly fails to do so.

Many have claimed from the start that the firearms legislation promulgated in response to the March 15 mosque attacks in Christchurch will do nothing to make New Zealand a safer place. Given that those who own firearms illegally are the least likely to hand them over, that would seem to be a reasonable position to take. Those who are surrendering their weapons are universally perceived to be responsible people, not the sort who would ever represent any sort of threat to anyone by virtue of the fact that they own, and in some cases don't even use, weapons that have now been deemed dangerous by association with one random act of previously unimaginable violence.

We have been assured, again and again, that the actions taken to rid New Zealand of what are sweepingly referred to as military-style semi-automatic weapons will make us safer. That was never going to be the case, but until last week's breach of what should have been the most fundamental security measures, those laws were at least not going to make this country more dangerous. That can no longer be said.

If this information found its way into criminal hands, despite assurances that it didn't, then whoever was responsible for this latest stroke of incompetence has made this a more dangerous country than it has ever been.

It certainly won't have done much to encourage firearms owners who have yet to come forward to make themselves known before the December 20 deadline, and to comply with a surrendering programme that was already claimed by critics to be falling well short of its stated target.

Some security breaches would not be out of place in a Yes Minister script. Whangārei MP Shane Reti said last week that, having exposed alleged data breaches by the Ministry of Arts, Culture and Heritage, the ministry "mistakenly" sent him official information that revealed it had been keeping its minister, Jacinda Ardern, "in the dark" about those data breaches.

Given that it is the standard human response to minimise any damage done by our acts of omission, or commission, it is not surprising that politicians trot out soothing words when they've cocked up, or someone has cocked up on their behalf. But we have a history of empty assurances in this country. We are entitled to treat them with disdain.

In roughly chronological order, we were assured that removing the right of schools to inflict corporal punishment would make this a gentler society. It hasn't. We were assured that depriving parents of the right to smack their children would make this a safer place for said children. It hasn't. We were assured that deregulating the electricity industry would mean cheaper power. It hasn't. We were assured that lowering the drinking age to 18 would promote a more civilised, responsible attitude towards alcohol. It hasn't.

Now we are being assured that the rules around euthanasia will prevent any possible misuse of legislation allowing to decide when, and how, we will die. This despite the evidence offered by the inexorable evolution of abortion, from a very strictly controlled process to the point where it is now effectively available on demand.

Typically those who oppose David Seymour's euthanasia bill are derided as religious fanatics, specifically Catholics, who have no right to foist their beliefs upon others. Anyone who does not believe in a vengeful God, it seems, cannot possibly have grounds to oppose this concept, or to doubt the ability of those who make the laws in this country to deliver what they say they will. It is not difficult to find legislation in this country that has not achieved what it was meant to, or has not morphed into something that is barely recognisable from what was originally promised.

We are also assured that if the recreational use of cannabis is legalised, the measures politicians are proposing will make it inaccessible to anyone under 20. Really? This new law will achieve what has been unachievable under the current regime, where use of the drug is illegal for all, by keeping it out of reach of those who are clearly at most risk of harm?

Andrew Little reckons he's on top of it. For one, it will be illegal to advertise cannabis — it's now illegal to advertise tobacco, but kids don't seem to have much trouble getting hold of it. And no one under the age of 20 will be allowed to buy it. Just like those under 18 can't buy alcohol. Again, kids don't seem to have much trouble getting hold of it.

Why will cannabis be any different? Because politicians assure us it will be? Why can't those who support the legalisation of cannabis, often on the spurious ground that alcohol is a much more harmful drug than cannabis will ever be, see that much of the problem with alcohol is its availability to all who have the money to buy it, and understand the ramifications of freely available cannabis? The best they can come up with is the argument that two wrongs make a right.

No one ever seems to learn. Not those who make the laws or those who allow them to. Whether it be corporal punishment, drugs, the ownership of firearms or state-sanctioned suicide, too many of us believe what we are told, despite past experience, or are too apathetic to oppose it.

For years politicians have been experimenting with social reform, and we're the lab rats. Too many of those politicians and their supporters dress themselves up as liberals, but in fact they don't have a clue what they're doing,

At least they could be honest, and admit that they think something might happen but can't promise anything. 'She'll be right' might be acceptable in terms of painting a fence or stacking the dishwasher, but not when you are restructuring an entire society.