OPINION
The public outrage over the $68,000 pay rise of Christchurch's CEO, Tony Marryatt, isn't just about the money. Certainly the size of the increase over an originally generous pay packet of $470,000 brought people to attention. You have to wonder why that original large salary, almost $100,000 more than
the pay packet of the Prime Minister, didn't raise some hackles earlier. The City's CEO, no matter how capable, doesn't have responsibilities near those of the leader of government.
It may be manifestly disproportionate for a city manager or CEO to earn more than the country's chief executive. But it's not until that CEO gets a pay rise that in itself exceeds most people's annual salary that the lack of fairness is perceived and outrage is generated. Which is why that outcry, the demand for the ousting of CEO, mayor and council will not be silenced by Mr Maryatt's decision not to accept that pay rise. The outrage was fundamentally about fairness, a value dear to the hearts of most New Zealanders.
Fairness begins to be learned at home, then is honed on the playground and evolves to become ethics and morality and aesthetics. My thesaurus's lengthy list of synonyms for fairness includes honour, decency and charity. The list begins with justice and ends with truth.
Perception is a lot when it comes to fairness. We expect a level playing field, particularly in the arena of justice - the courts. Justice, we believe, should be blind to invidious distinctions of age, gender, race, or religion. Moreover, we would like to believe in a justice which is not swayed by her other senses-the audible ring of the cash register or the sweet smell of newly minted currency.
We don't like to believe that in our courts wealth does make a difference. There's the spectacle of Kim Dotcom, assets frozen but represented by top quality lawyers. Or the finance company directors, facing fraud charges, who receive advice and representation that is both skilled and costly.
On the other side, there are examples of money or the lack of it affecting access and even outcome in the legal system. Tauranga Maori are objecting to Port of Tauranga's plan to deepen the harbour to accommodate giant container ships, fearing the loss of traditional pipi beds. The chair of Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana, Colin Bidois, sees a major obstacle to getting a fair outcome. Turned down in the Environment Court at a cost of $50,000, the idea of an appeal to a higher court with likely costs of $1 million means the group's important question may never even be asked. Is it fair to promote the economic activity of one enterprising group by changing the environment at the possible expense of the livelihood of another group?
There's no argument with the fact that, in everyday life, money is important, representing degrees of freedom. It's precisely where that freedom may become limited that money ought to be of little weight - the criminal justice system.
Locally, an erstwhile politician maintains that ordinary folks accused of crimes don't deserve or even need a defence. Trained as a lawyer, this pol proudly boasts that he knows the shortcuts and simply avoids what he calls "fanciful defences" so that his "criminal clients" get what he deems a reasonable outcome - presumably a guilty verdict and a sentence. With that attitude, the presumption of innocence flies out the window. Small wonder this lawyer says he has an easy job.
Not taking responsibility to actually represent a client and provide a defence does make the job easier, though not for the newly convicted or his/her family.
It's precisely the indigent, the poor, who need adequate legal representation.
Concern for their right to a fair trial, a good defence, is not about sympathy for criminals. It's about justice and respect for the law.