New Zealand Police Act Wiki Lets You Write the Law

PhoenixOr writes "New Zealand is now on the top of my list for cool governments. They've opened a wiki allowing the populace to craft a new version of their Police Act, the legislative basis for policing in New Zealand."

Not such a good idea..

[Apoorv]

Opening a wiki for creating laws is insane. It would just invite vandalism, and instead of leading to formation of new laws, it would waste money and manpower involved in maintanence and moderation.

Re:kiwis use wikis

[Tuoqui]

Now if only this would catch on... we might actually see laws that are representative of what the people want instead of some asshole with a few hundred thousand dollars more than they should have in their pocket.

An alternative

[Apoorv]

A much better way to gather public opinion on the law would be online voting for passing of bills from the legislation. The masses can decide on that better than the President alone.

Re:Not such a good idea..

[Anonymous Coward]

Opening a wiki for creating laws is insane. It would just invite vandalism, and instead of leading to formation of new laws, it would waste money and manpower involved in maintanence and moderation.

Yeah. I heard that someone also had a wiki to build an encyclopedia, but that's just as insane. It would just invite vandalism, and instead of leading to an informative and complete reference, it would waste money and manpower involved in maintanence and moderation.

A Public Relations exercise

[gihan_ripper]

From the wiki (emphasis mine):

An official Bill is currently being written-up by parliamentary drafters, but in parallel there's an opportunity for others to suggest how a new Policing Act might look by contributing to a wiki Act.

OK, it's unrealistic to believe that New Zealand would let anyone write the law. That would lead to anarchy. However, what they're doing is trying to get people interested in the law-making process, and in the laws themselves by opening up this wiki. I can see a number of purposes this could serve:

1. Educational: teaches citizens about laws and law-making.
2. Political: by getting citizens involved in the process, they're more likely to support the new Act.
3. Police PR: gets citizens to think about policing in a new way and perhaps gain a new respect for the Police.

Peelian Principles

[TheLink]

I think the Peelian Principles are still good and sound:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles [wikipedia.org]

If only my country's police force would follow them.

Not Practical In The U.S.

[Jane Q. Public]

As pointed out elsewhere, the people who would participate are too self-selecting. They would just be too small a segment of the U.S. population.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for "participatory" government. The people who take the trouble to speak up are the ones who are heard.

Re:*cough*

[dangitman]

Communism will be an "extreme democracy" the day fascism will be a "benevolent dictatorship".

Isn't that day today? And yesterday, and the day before? "Benevolent Dictatorships" are exactly how fascism thrives. Keeping the trains running on time, building freeways, holding the Superbowl - that kind of thing. Without the bread and circuses, the fascists wouldn't remain in power so easily.

Re:Not such a good idea..

[dangitman]

Laws have to be constant, same for everyone, and not open to discussion or question.

WTF? Laws should be constant? So slavery never should have been abolished, I guess. They should not be open for discussion? Sounds like fascism to me.

It should be the exact opposite - laws should change to reflect the times, and they should be constantly discussed and questioned.

Re:kiwis use wikis

[Virtual_Raider]

I don't think we would see to many of those laws. The final draft will be reviewed by a relevant body before submitting it for approval. Not doing so would be insane, as all manner of abuse could find their way into the law otherwise. The thing is, it will be reviewed by those same people that we are supposing take "financial aids" from interest groups. So they will just snip out whatever doesn't suit their agendas.

I know this is a police law, but think of the possibilities in other areas. What if I want to expand the definition of Fair Use? Or if I want to shorten copyright duration? Do you see those amends surviving even on the face of overwhelming public support on the wiki? On top of lobbyists there would be astroturfers for one thing. And let's not forget that usually the only people that are vocal about something are those with a vested interest. I wouldn't want the nosy bastards from some retarded Home-Owners association slipping in some ordinances that would, for example, prevent me from installing a solar array on my backyard because it "ruins the aesthetics of the neighborhood" or such. Particularly if I don't even live on their area but get covered by this laws.

I think is a good publicity stunt and it may even generate some novel ideas, but I just don't see it suddenly making sense of the legal landscape in any meaningful way. I'd much rather they put the existing laws in a database with strong referential integrity. That would be interesting.

Just some ramble =)

Re:Not Practical In The U.S.

[Jane Q. Public]

Wikipedia has some VERY serious flaws. For example, it is too vulnerable to vandalism, even though that vandalism is often easily fixable... if anyone happens to notice it in a timely manner.

There are other flaws as well. From my own participation, for example, I have found that often certain groups of people will "take over" a topic as "their own", and interfere with input from outside sources, however valid that input may be. In some ways this is analogous to problems we see today with "peer review" in scientific journals.

Wikipedia would be a disastrous model for anything having to do with government. It relies too much on the "good nature" of contributors. As we see very often, some people simply don't have any. And that is double true when it comes to government.

Can work in some cases, won't work in many

[Opportunist]

It does work in cases where people don't care. Sounds silly, I know, but that's how it is. It will only work for laws people don't feel strongly about. Or laws that only one side (pro or con) feels strongly about and the rest doesn't care.

Take the US and imagine a system like that. Now, take a law about subsidies for agriculture for example. Will it pass? Certainly. The farmers are the only ones who care about it. Do I care? No.

Now take a law about capital punishment, gay marriage or abortion. Then grab popcorn and watch the editwars.

Re:Excellent

[jonbritton]

And having this online provides an excellent communication medium.

And limited to middle-class folks with computers and Internet connections..

I'm sure NZ's Maori population is offering a collective sound that translates roughly to, "whoop-dee-fucking-doo."

Re:A Public Relations exercise

[bug1]

"OK, it's unrealistic to believe that New Zealand would let anyone write the law. That would lead to anarchy."

Quite the opposite.

Anarchy is the absense in laws, so letting anyone write laws would move New Zealand further away from anarchy.

Allowing anyone to repeal laws might lead to anarchy.

If I was prime minister...

[ThirdPrize]

I think that where every 10/20 years the whole law book gets reviewed. Anything not entirely relevant gets removed so as to streamline the whole legal process. Most legal systems are full of laws that go back several hundred years and never get called on these days. If you don't see people herding sheep over london bridge its got nothing to do with the fact it's against the law, its just that there is no need to any more. Rather than the typical knee jerk reactions to some current event, a constantly evolving set of laws would be more in touch with the people and the state of the nation. To this end, a wiki is certainly an interesting way of doing things. A discussion forum on the various subjects may have been better as that would encourage proper discussion and discourage edit wars.

Re:kiwis use wikis

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You act like the default relationship with the government should be love. You should hate your government until they give you a reason not to.

Re:kiwis use wikis

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Now if only this would catch on... we might actually see laws that are representative of what the people want

At least, those who have and know how to use an internet connection, so you get a bias there. From what I've seen, there's far too much libertarianism to get a balanced and democratic decisions (no offense intended to libertarians out there).

And the process seems nevertheless a little too democratic, if you know what I mean. Would the people be able to know the ins and outs of creating a law? Would they be able to create/edit a law without creating loopholes?

Finally, the wiki model may not be the best model. Only those who can be bothered to change the law for themselves get a say, and people on the fringes of politics tend to be the most dedicated. Consequently, extremist laws will be in danger of being passed. Also, anyone who edits the wiki instantly changes the law to exactly what they want, so the leverage is far too great for just one person. They could fix that by adding in an administration a la Wikipedia, but that has its own problems. I don't know if we want messy IP blocking in a democratic process.

Be wise to manufactured bogeymen

[Morgaine]

> OK, it's unrealistic to believe that New Zealand would let anyone write the law. That would lead to anarchy.

You've been reading too much government propaganda.

"Anarchy" is a bogeyman that governments trot out whenever there's a danger that citizens want to control their politicians and make them servants of the people, which of course would never do.

It ranks alongside "Who will think of the children?", manufactured wars, and dozens of other diversionary tactics that they use.

Be wise to manufactured bogeymen.

Re:An alternative

[kiwipeso]

New Zealand follows the German MMP system. We have one house of representatives. We will have 121 Seats unless there is another overhang next year. About half are directly elected, of which 7 are Maori seats. The rest are list seats allocated by putting in party nominees according to their share after counting what they won.

So, to get represented in parliament, you either need to win : a general electorate, a maori electorate or 5% of the party votes.

What this means is simple, Labour or National win a load of ordinary seats and fill with up a few list MPs.
NZFirst gets the elderly and the patriot vote. Sure to be there. :-(
Greens get the young and the hippy vote. Like the smell of their voters, sure to be there. :-P
Act gets the ambitious and business vote. Too well funded to lose, but I like them more than others. :-)
Maori party, gets enough of the Maori seats and Pacific Islander votes to be there. A new party.

That irrelevant few that split up and now have bugger all chance. (One has gone to be the christian party with the MP who is in the first corruption trial.)

What would be easier would be if you are just going to make laws into online referenda (with postal voting allowed).

Re:A Public Relations exercise

[Anonymous Coward]

"OK, it's unrealistic to believe that New Zealand would let anyone write the law. That would lead to anarchy."

or even democracy

Re:A Public Relations exercise

[Cal Paterson]

anarchy

This word is not a flashcard for any political situation you dislike. The fact that you are writing law means that the situation, by definition cannot be anarchic, and I think you know that.

Re:kiwis use wikis

[Elemenope]

Hating your government for no good reason is nearly as silly as loving it on the same basis. I would say one should be rationally engaged and emotionally disinterested in their government unless and until that government unduly interferes in your life or perpetrates some act you consider to be unjust.

But maybe that's just me.

Re:kiwis use wikis

[jmac1492]

Or on the other hand, unless and until it does something helpful to you (defends you in a war, catches a criminal who wronged you, etc.)

Re:Not such a good idea..

[Cigarra]

What he was saying is that if you get a speeding ticket, you shouldn't be able to go in, edit the law to exclude everyone with your surname and then tear the ticket up.

Well of course, that's obvious. It's reasonable to asume the wiki will be used to build a draft of the law, which will be later passed by the Congress, and "locked for edition".