Section 59 Brush-Off

I'm following quite closely the progress of the Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. I'm pleased that it's looking good at the moment, but it's frustrating that it's being delayed. Although, if I didn't happen to think this Bill was the best action to take (on balance), then I'd be pleased with the opportunity to delay in the hope of changing the outcome, so you have to be consistent.

On Monday I finally got around to sending a bunch of letters to selected MPs outlining my view, and I have started getting replies, which is an education in itself. The most cynical so far has been from Mark Blumsky (who voted against the Bill). Here's a guy who used to be (a popular) mayor of Wellington, and who was in the paper a few weeks ago saying he is thinking of stepping down from parliament because a back-bencher can't achieve anything concrete. And yet, you hardly ever hear of him commenting on local or national issues, or supporting local people, or otherwise doing any work. (He's a list MP.) There is such a lot of policy to get your head around, he could usefully spend the first three years with his head down just reading; I wonder if he is doing that much? But in any case, if he ever wants to take the Wellington Central electorate from Labour (and he has a good chance next year as Marion Hobbs is not standing again), then he has to allocate one day a week to actually trying to do some good in the community.

I sent him a letter about S59 because he might be my electorate MP one day, and I recievecd the following reply:

Dear Maureen Woodhams,
Thank you for your letter of (date) regarding the .... Bill.
I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your thoughts.
I respect your opinion - I hope you respect mine.
Yours (etc)

Mark has not got the point. I am a private person. It's my job to have opinions and tell my MP (or any other MP) about them. If I have good reasoning, I might just be persuasive.

He, as an MP, is not a private person. He is being paid by the public to gather information and make the best decisions he can. Therefore, his opinion is not particularly relevant (though it will colour which information he accepts as being valid or useful). That's why I think the letter is a brush off, and I question what work Mark Blumsky is doing for his parliamentary salary.