Someone please tell me how despite the loud complaints from a rediculous number of people, laws can continue to be passed into effect with a 'lets wait and see' approach?
I'm sure you know what i'm talking about..
TV3 News reports that our 'presumed-guilty' law come into effect next month. So does the NZ Herald reports that the stats used to justify the need for the law are very likely, hopelessly inflated and perhaps unprovable.
Don Christie came up with an anology for the law which will ring rather close to home for Wellingtonians this morning.
But what prompted me more than anything else to blog, yet again, was this article noting that the government is adopting a "watching brief" on the implementation of Section 92A. This reminds me of the anti-smacking legislation which has already had bad press. Why should we be putting poor legislation into _law_ and then adopting policies which enforce _how_ it's enforced? Why not just make the law appropriate in the first place?
And how the hell can the government-of-the-people ignore such a large proportion of interest holders who're all saying the same things? (just like the anti smacking legislation).
Sorry but i'm seriously confused over this one. The tack the government is taking is succinctly reported in this article from Computerworld - once in place, theyll watch to see how it works in practise and possibly make changes at that point. Why not, though, get it right (or closer to it) the first time?!
This Summary in the New Zealand Herald isn't too bad either.