THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
The provision of Law is the essential "core function" of Government. Under the Principle of Non-Injury, Government would confine itself to the formulation of Law and its Enforcement, or more specifically, those Legislative, Protective and Constitutional Services essential to and directly related to the protection of Liberty.
Representation - Legislative Review - Quality, Productivity, Service
Representation
The application of the Principle of Non-Injury to everyday Law is precisely defined in terms of the twin confines of Obligation and Limitation.
The Principle of Non-Injury obligates Government to prevent any and all injury, imposition or exploitation by one citizen over another. Where there is an identifiable Imposition caused to one person by another there is an obligation for action at Law.
The Principle of Non-Injury limits Government from initiating any Law or Instruction which is not clearly and demonstrably in defence of an identifiable liberty from imposition by another. Without an identifiable imposition there can be no protective Law.
The adoption of such a clearly defined Principle affects the process of Legislation and Government, as well as the very status and function of Ministers and Legislators.
The Principle itself becomes the ultimate criterion of "Right" and "Wrong" in social conduct. Legislators become Interpreters of the Principle, the Legislative process is directed, not to satisfying the demands of sectional interests, but to the honest and consistent interpretation of the Principle based on a clear understanding of it.
The Principle also imposes a clear discipline on the resultant Legislation itself, for the Principle of Non-Injury can be described with such a high degree of accuracy that anyone having a basic understanding or instinctive sense of liberty can comprehend it, monitor its progress, and defend it whenever necessary.
The Legislative Process is initiated when a professional Legislator, a Parliamentary Representative, a single individual citizen, a group of citizens or a Special Interest Society brings to the attention of the Legislature a suspected Imposition, either caused by citizen and permitted by insufficient Legislation, or caused by the Political Administration through excessive or intrusive Legislation.
The identification of an injured party either actual or potential is essential to initiate the process of Legislative Debate. The purpose of Law is to prevent injury; the need for Law is occasioned by an injury, either actual or immediately anticipated. The formulation of Legislation which will prevent that injury either totally or as nearly as practicably possible is the object of the Legislative Process, and its fulfillment will conclude the Process.
In order to improve both productivity and opportunity for wider participation, greater use may be made of Specialist Committee Hearings in the early stages of initial filtration and opening debate.
The initial debate in Committee must involve everyone who has an interest in the matter. Imposition can be simple, or a very complex issue involving several conflicting Liberties, and it is vital that every aspect be taken into consideration. Similarly any remedy proposed for the avoidance of a specific Imposition may itself cause new imposition and involve other parties. It is only through the widest possible debate and participation that the minimization of Imposition can be assured.
There are three main groupings of participants who may be involved in the overall Legislative Process.
Full-time professional Legislators are constantly scanning events and activities in order to identify possible instances of Imposition. They continuously review existing laws on a scheduled basis to ensure that past laws remain relevant. It may also be necessary to reconsider or rephrase a particular Law resulting from a request by the Judiciary for Review.
Elected Parliamentary Representatives act as a bridge between citizen and Legislature, listening to people's concerns, explaining the Law, and bringing injustice to the attention of Legislature, Courts, or the Constitutional Executive Council as appropriate. Citizens perceiving themselves injured can bring the matter initially to the attention of their Parliamentary Representative if they so wish.
Citizens can also contribute to the process themselves directly, either as individuals, or perhaps more advantageously as members of Special Interest Groups and Societies. There are many such Societies representing every shade of interest, opinion and expertise from civil liberties to environment, heritage preservation and transport.
These Societies or Groups frequently represent an assemblage of considerable expertise, of informed users or consumers, retired professionals, and people devoted to their respective causes. The Societies are supported by the subscriptions of Members and are thus responsible to Members and responsive to their needs; if they fail in their purpose they simply die through lack of subscriptions and support. Conversely, as new issues and new concerns develop, new Societies are formed.
Citizens can rely upon their Societies to monitor Legislative Proposals in their specific area of interest, and to draw Members' attention to any need for action.
Recognition of such Societies and Special Interest Groups as participants in the Legislative Debating Process improves participation and contributes constructively by bringing information and expertise which might otherwise be excluded.
Citizens may prefer to bring a Personal Legislative Proposal or complaint to the attention of the relevant Society for consideration and further action if appropriate. Say for example, one finds that some public footpaths are being altered or eliminated in the Resources Planning process, one can contact the local Ramblers' Association, a Society which is sympathetic to and understands the issues involved. Associations can then use their expertise to present a case to the Legislature and exert the necessary influence to get something done.
A citizen can belong to as few or as many such Societies as he or she may wish, contributing directly to the upkeep of the Society which in turn is responsible solely to its Members. Typically, Societies represent walkers, environmentalists, economists, employees, those interested in civil liberties and in disciplining the expenditure of the Political Administration.
In the New Age it is considered particularly important that young people in their teens should have full opportunity to participate in the Legislative Process, through parallel debates in schools, or through their own Societies participating in Legislative Debates.
It has in the past been frequently said of young people by their elders that they are irresponsible; insofar as this may in some instances be true, the simple way to make people responsible is to give them responsibility. Young people now have the right and ample opportunity to participate in the framing of tomorrow's world: it is after all, they who will have to live in it.
A wider degree of participation in the Legislative-Interpretive Process, however, does not mean promoting self-interest at the expense of others; participation must be motivated by an honest desire to make all pertinent facts and points of view known, so that in the end a fair and just solution will be reached, a solution which will reflect the Principle as accurately as circumstances permit.
Legislative Review
The Legislative Process must also allow for "Review" of any Law at any time, either by the Legislature or by the Constitutional Executive Council. This may be occasioned when the practical application of a Law is found to be difficult or ambiguous or impractical during the Judicial process.
Under the Principle of Non-Injury the Procedure for Judicial Review would provide for three distinct types of case.
Should a Court find that in practice a particular Law is not well drafted, or is difficult to interpret, or should the Court suspect that the Imposition which the Law attempts to prevent has not been properly identified or addressed, then the Court proceedings would be suspended and a prompt re-consideration requested from the Legislature or if necessary the Constitutional Executive Council.
A Law may also be "returned" to the Legislature where insufficient detail leaves it unclear in relation to the case in hand.
In a case where the Law remains a valid reflection of the Principle of Non-Injury for all general purposes, but in the extra-ordinary, specific circumstances under the Court's consideration there is no actual Imposition, then the Court would note the exception and dismiss the case, there being no Imposition to answer.
The ultimate test of the fitness of any Law under the Principle of Non-Injury is plain and simple: if I were to disregard this Law, would I cause injury to another individual?
If there is injury, the immediate and effective protection of Law is an obligation; but if there is no injured party, there can be no Law.
When the sole object of the Legislative Process is the accurate reflection of the Principle of Non-Injury, its laws must always be open to Review, by the Judiciary or by any aware and observant citizen with an instinct for the preservation of Liberty.
Under the Principle of Non-Injury, it is the Principle itself which gives authority, obligation, and limitation, to Law and to the Process of Government; the Principle becomes the source and focal point of Law, taking precedence over Government in all its aspects.
The ideal of Democracy is power to the people. The Principle of Non-Injury gives power to the people - the power of the Principle by which all Government action or inaction can be called to account.
It is clear and simple, a fundamental law of social conduct with which we are all instinctively familiar.
We should all have the freedom to enjoy life and improve ourselves as we choose and are able. But we should not do so in ways which are harmful or detrimental to others; we should not seek gain at the expense of others' loss.
With the guidance of this Principle we can share resources equitably and use them wisely, we can trade fairly, we respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We live in liberty, respecting and not infringing the liberties of others. And we prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely more creative, more powerful force than confrontation.
Quality, Productivity, Service
“The purpose of Government is to prevent men from injuring one another”… When Thomas Jefferson spoke those words he could hardly have been aware that 150 years later the main preoccupation of government had become what can only be called “money-handling” – taking money with one hand then doling out with the other, minus a generous handling fee, not to mention the plain envelopes and under-the-table “commissions”.
If Government is to exercise its regulatory function without bias it cannot own or operate any non-political services or industries, including infrastructure and Essential Services.
Infrastructure and Essential Services must be operated outside Government, but with Government's strict legal supervision.
In order to make government more efficient and accountable, and to satisfy the requirements of the Principle, an important first step would be the separation of all non-political Services from government. Non-political Services include provision and maintenance of roads, schools, health, pension and welfare services, administration of railways and any other productive or commercial services.
The non-political Services, when separated from Government, should be autonomous managerially and financially. These Services would then become responsible for their own management and finances, raising capital as required through the Investment Banking System. They would no longer be subject to the uncertainties of Government finance or to the managerial whims of politicians; but they would become subject to strict disciplines, reporting regularly and publicly through the medium of Total Performance Audits specifying details of quality and productivity.
Government, now independent from these non-political Services, would be better placed to do its proper job: that of making sure that the Private Sector including all previously Government-run business conducts itself responsibly, efficiently, and productively.
And with the purpose and function of Government clearly defined, it becomes much easier to apply strict financial and administrative disciplines to ensure that Government fulfils its own core functions as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible with continuously rising productivity.
Once Government has been brought down to its core services, these too should be re-structured so that they are separately identifiable, and publicly accountable for their productivity and service.
Many existing government departments and programs would inevitably be abandoned as being non-essential, while each of those remaining would be required to state clearly what it is doing, what it is costing, and the extent to which it is fulfilling its stated objectives productively.
The Principle of Non-Injury, applied in Economics and Commerce as a policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise sets high standards of management and customer satisfaction, quality and productivity, performance and accounting for the Private Sector.
And Government is not exempt from Commercial Law.
Government is a service to its consumers and as such is itself subject to the strictest possible commercial disciplines; its performance must be at least as good as and preferably better than the Private Sector. Any Commercial Legislation relating to accounting, standards, productivity or quality of Private Sector business and commerce is immediately and automatically applicable to any and all functions of Government.
Government is not outside the Law; Government Legislation, conduct and operations are at all times subject to the Principle of Non-Injury and to all its resultant Legislation.
The process of auditing and applying the necessary disciplines to Government is the responsibility of a specially constituted Committee under the Constitutional Executive Council; no institution, least of all Government, can be trusted to discipline itself.
The aim of Government should be the same as that of any well-run Private Sector industry or service: to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible price.
The Principle of Non-Injury: that we should confine ourselves to those actions and activities which are not detrimental or disadvantageous to others, which do not harm or injure others, is as old as Human conscience.
The parallel concept of Government, that it exists primarily to prevent such actions, has likewise existed in political philosophy as expounded by reformers throughout recorded history.
And the ideal that Government, its function clearly defined and limited, should exercise its duties efficiently and at minimum cost to its customers, is a dream long cherished by reformers and tax-payers alike.
Accurate and consistent application of the Principle of Non-Injury would maximize Liberty; and with its function clearly definable and subject to its own inherent discipline it would do so productively and without incurring an over-burdensome tax on our earnings.
This ideal was summarized by Thomas Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address given on March 4th, 1801:
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another yet leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: this is the sum of good Government necessary to complete the circle of our felicities".
