Garth George: Pin-prick regulation penalises all for actions of a few

COMMENT

The esteemed wordsmith Gordon McLauchlan in his column at the weekend quite rightly lamented the move by the Auckland City Council and others to ban the consumption of alcohol near beaches. He blamed it on an eruption of wowserism among councillors.

While I wholeheartedly concur with his sentiments, my concern goes deeper. I see this proposal as just another in a long line of petty restrictions whose perpetrators seem determined to reduce us all to the lowest common denominator.

It has been going on for years. I first became resentful of it decades ago when, as a result of the activities of a few criminals, businesses began looking askance at cheques.

Soon no one would accept a cheque unless one could provide some means of identification, generally a driver's licence. Which always made me laugh because in those days a driver's licence was just a piece of paper with a number and a signature on it - of no more value as an identifier than the cheque for which it was supposed to vouch.

The arrival of Eftpos put paid to that nuisance and the only cheques one needed to write were those for which an account had been sent.

And with the arrival of internet banking the number of cheques I have to write has dwindled to one in a blue moon, since all the monthly bills are entered into my computer the day they arrive and - hey presto - on the due date the bank sends the money.

As the years have gone by we - the vast majority who are honest and law-abiding - have become more and more circumscribed in our living by laws, regulations and rules which have been put in place as a result of the activities of a few.

Instead of dealing quickly and firmly with the few - which might cost a few dollars - the powers that be seem only too ready to pass a law or a bylaw or a regulation which penalises us all.

One of the nastiest results of all this pin-prick regulation is that each one, it seems, has to have its own corps of bureaucratic enforcers - petty officials of Government agencies or local authorities whose job it is to ensure our obedience.

And it is, of course, inevitable that such positions attract just the sort of people who are totally unsuited to the job, generally men and women who revel in having a little authority over others - and consequently tend to abuse it.

Prime examples are the kerfuffle the other week over pool fencing in Waitakere City; and activities of dog control officers in Auckland City.

In the Waitakere pools fiasco, some officious council inspector ruled that pools couldn't be given the all clear if they had pool furniture beside them.

The council, claimed one pool owner, had ruled that "pools should not be used for entertainment or social activities so it says tables and chairs are not allowed in the pool area".

Now I ask you: what the hell else is a swimming pool used for but to entertain its owners, their families and their guests?

That's not the point. Because it is there mainly to protect children, it is hard to argue against the law that requires pools to be fenced. But it once again illustrates my point that the majority are penalised by the irresponsible actions of a few.

Millions of dollars are spent in securing swimming pools because a handful of parents or caregivers are inattentive, yet the idiocy of it all is that there are drains and creeks and pools and fountains and ponds and lakes all over Waitakere City - and not a fence in sight.

I note that nothing has been heard of this debacle for a couple of weeks, so I suspect that the eminently sensible Bob Harvey, mayor of our fair city, has directed the boom be lowered on the drongo whose actions held the council up to ridicule.

The dog control area is a shambles, too. Just because a couple of children are savaged by dogs that no one but seriously strange humans would want to own, all dog owners (and I'm not one; I prefer cats) are penalised.

And, as usual, those people charged with ensuring our obedience to the latest lot of unnecessary and inconvenient rule-making are only too quick to exhibit their diligence and, I suspect, give themselves a thrill at the same time.

To lumber a resident who let his well-trained and obedient mutt off the leash 50m from his front gate with a $500 instant fine is quite beyond comprehension, even at the low level of bureaucracy which allows it to happen.

Fortunately for readers, this column has limited space, for I could fill this whole page with examples of how petty regulations seek to reduce us to an obedient amorphous mass.

And I'm sure many of us have our pet hates.

One of mine: why on earth don't the cops seeking to check registration and warrants of fitness wander around supermarket and shopping mall carparks instead of setting up roadblocks and interfering with my going about my lawful occasions?

* Email Garth George