KEY POINTS:
August 28, 2008 was an important day for New Zealand, but those who were there at the time may not have noticed.
Although the next day's newspapers were covered with pictures of Winston Peters and discussion of who said what and when, history will remember it very differently. It was the day that the New Zealand executive took the decision to introduce a potentially deadly weapon on to the streets of the country.
I refer of course to the decision by Commissioner Howard Broad to adopt the "Taser" nationally in the wake of the weapon's trial in Auckland and Wellington.
Although I admit to personal unease over the use of the Taser, my real concern lies not the decision itself or in the good offices of Commissioner Broad.
It is the method by which the decision was taken that should worry us. It also tells us much about the problems that beset our democracy today. This important decision was, we were told, an "operational" one and thus not something suitable for parliamentary debate. Instead, an unelected official was left to make the decision according to his discretion.
Such a definition assumes that such a decision is technical only and has no political component but this is nothing more than dangerous political semantics. This decision is not merely based on policing requirements in New Zealand but whether we, as a society, are willing to take the risks that come with the introduction of this weapon, particularly for the mentally ill and infirm.
In fact Commissioner Broad did bring his decision "in principle" before Parliament although he was roundly criticised for doing so. In fact he deserves credit for bringing this before Parliament, although the manner in which it was done left a lot to be desired.
At least the commissioner was aware that his decision was far too important to be left to an appointed public servant alone, no matter how senior and respected.
Unfortunately, few others did so. The Police Association complained that by placing the issue before Parliament he raised the possibility that Parliament might have refused to agree to the Taser's introduction.
'What would we have done then," their spokesman howled. Well, call me a traditionalist, but if the democratically elected representatives of the country think something's a bad idea, it seems at least polite to heed them.
The Police Association and their spokesman had nothing to fear, however, as the House responded with a largely anodyne and ill-informed debate, before getting back to its pastime of Clark baiting (preferably with a live Winston).
The response of some of our parliamentary representatives was frankly astonishing, with members questioning why they were being asked to approve such an "operational" measure. This begs a rather obvious question.
What exactly do our parliamentarians think their job is? To navel gaze incessantly at each others financial backers? Foolishly, I was of the view that we lived in a representative democracy and their job was to represent the electorate of New Zealand and make decisions on our behalf.
A decision such as this one, with fundamental consequences for New Zealand society and the policing of that society is exactly the sort of decision that should be taken by our representatives after full and frank discussion of the facts.
The nature of modern government means that ever greater decisions are left to the executive branch. This is unavoidable.
However, it is politically convenient for governments to play the administrative or "operational" card as often as possible. It allows for policy decisions to be taken without political responsibility and equally importantly without the inconvenience of parliamentary approval and debate.
That ruling parties should behave this way should not surprise us, however, our method of government relies entirely upon Parliament to at least try and restrict such activities. It is a dangerous development indeed when Parliament appears not to care that a decision as important as this one was approved in such a casual manner.
There are little enough controls on the executive in this country without Parliament throwing in the towel too.
* Dr W. John Hopkins is a senior lecturer in public law, Law School, University of Canterbury.
