A prison hallway. Photo: UnSplash/ Matthew Ansley
It is never easy to accurately outline the complexities and nuances under discussion during a Parliamentary debate. Given that books struggle to do justice to most policy areas, it's unsurprising that news reports have little hope.
The debates that MPs undertake in Parliament's chamber have little chance of delving into the complexities either.
Two hours (tops) is just enough time to outline a few key issues and acknowledge some of the many thorny aspects.
Or, if the politics of a topic prompt a simpler, emotion-led approach, it is just long enough for a few talking points and a personal impact story or two.
Despite the ease and effectiveness of the simple approach, most debates do at least acknowledge there is complexity that can't be adequately addressed. A few are monochromatic, but in most policy discussions you quickly learn that the best descriptor is 'it's complicated'.
. Photo: 123rf
This week the House debated the second reading of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, a draft law proposed by the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith.
Justice, and especially criminal sentencing, is always fraught and contested. And above all, it's complicated.
Sentencing policy can even include constitutional implications. Parliament makes laws (including sentencing guidelines), but there is a line where at some point the judiciary is meant to be independent, as a separate branch of government. Not preeminent, but respected enough to be guided by its own expertise in its own domain. MPs use the word comity - mutual respect.
It's a tricky balance, and this Bill moves the line a little, diminishing the discretion that judges have in arriving at sentences.
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
