A guest post by Justice Minister Simon Power
I am often asked as Justice Minister what my position on evidence is.
Because I get asked this question a lot, I have decided to spell out my position and the position of the government I am a member of, so as to leave no doubt about where we stand.
For so long as I am Justice Minster there is not a single, solitary chance that this government will relax its position on the use of evidence.
Indeed, I will not rest until the use of evidence in formulating governmental policy has been cut to zero. I know this is an ambitious target, but, like the Prime Minster, I am ambitious for New Zealand and its people, especially when those people happen to be me.
Evidence is all around us. It is all pervasive. Most of us will know someone who is using evidence, and will have seen the destruction evidence causes, particularly to the chances of those people voting for my party.
And let me tell you a personal story. I have also dabbled with evidence. Not only at university, but also during various stages of my legal career. I know first-hand the terrible damage to irrational policymaking an addiction to evidence can cause. Thankfully, those days are now just a memory, but they have left me with a powerful determination to never again use evidence.
And let me be clear on one other thing. We don’t subscribe to the view that some types of soft evidence aren’t really harmful. It doesn’t matter whether it’s soft anecdotal evidence or hard facts. Prolonged use of evidence by voters can be harmful to this government.
That is why we have taken this stand. We are simply not prepared to gamble with the futures of New Zealanders who also happen to be members of my caucus.
Friday, February 12, 2010
6 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like this, Mr Power, but could it be catchier? "Evidence-Neutral by 2011"?
ReplyDelete"EvideNZe-free"?
And with respect, Mr Power, but did you perhaps forget to assure us that although there is not a "single, solitary chance that this government will relax its position on the use of evidence", you are absolutely prepared to listen to submissions on the use of evidence?
Jordan, your last paragraph suggests you may be an evidence user. Are you getting treatment?
ReplyDeleteOh come off it! Evidence can be consumed in moderation with no ill effect.
ReplyDeleteMy father took a little bit of evidence every day, and it never did him any harm. In fact, I swear it's good for your heart.
It used to be that in the public service provision was made for people who enjoyed evidence. Now you have to do it in your spare time, off the premises. It's almost illegal, for no good reason. PC gone mad, I tell you!
It starts with using a little evidence at parties, amongst their friends, and before you know it they're using it on blog posts and in letters to the editor. It's quite disgusting. I've heard rumours that use of evidence can lead to critical examination of policies, or even - and this is quite shocking, gentle readers - logical dissection of the statements made by our political betters. Use of evidence must be stopped, before it brings about the downfall of our current society.
ReplyDeleteBest thing I've read in quite some time, bravo!
ReplyDeleteThere are some commentators and journalists who like to make it look like they have never used evidence when in fact they are old hands at sniffing out high quality evidence. Anyone watching Q&A on Sunday morning or reading Woman's Weekly will notice that Paul Holmes is fervantly anti-evidence but I've heard he regularly used evidence in the past. I think its time Paul came clean about his use of evidence. He may not use evidence anymore but there are members of his immediate family who are having evidence withheld from them just so Paul can look good in public.
ReplyDelete