Machines of childhood?

We have all been appalled these past weeks by the warped and horrific story of an Austrian man, Josef Fritzl who abused his daughter, fathering children by her and keeping her captive in a basement. The story emerged to the press when the family was discovered, the woman was released and Fritzl was charged with a range of offences including incest, murder and enslavement. This week, Fritzl's trial began. The reports emerging in newspapers regarding the trial, reflect deep dismay and a desperation to find reasons to explain how a human being can act so destructively towards their offspring.

One of the main aspects of the trial to be reported so far, is Fritzl's testimony about his own childhood. The New Zealand Herald reported, "His voice breaking, Fritzl briefly recalled his childhood and said life with his mother was 'very difficult.'" The Sydney Morning Herald's article about the trial was titled "My mother didn't want me: Fritzl claims he was abused."

Trying to understand what leads a human being to behave so terribly can help to make sense of such malevolence. A deeper understanding can push us towards greater compassion, and respect for our common human frailty. But, at the same time, understanding of context must never lead us to diminish responsibility or weaken the terrible fact of human choice.

The wounds that occur in each human being's life can have profound implications for their future. The choices that we make are not neutral or even. Decisions are made with the baggage of our past, the habits and wounds that have shaped us. And yet, choices are still made. Those choices are real. Recognising this is pertinent in the case of Fritzl. Whilst he no doubt has very real problems which began in childhood and were compounded by the life he led, to suggest that this explains Fritzl's actions is to reduce him and all of us, to machines of childhood—walking time-bombs with no power or agency, and no capacity to change. Such a therapeutic model diminishes the frank and brutal reality of human choice and the equal mystery of human evil.

There is mystery in the way that we people choose. There is mystery in the fact that our circumstances shape us and yet we also have choice to transcend them. There is no salve in this story to make it neat. There is no path forward to fix the wrong done, to explain it neatly. This is frightening and uncomfortable, because it means we cannot guarantee that such horrors will not be repeated. If we could explain clearly what went wrong, we could simply fix the recipe of childhood for all people and make things go right. But the truth is that each of us must choose how to live in the light of our pasts and to behave in ways that contradict the pain that threatens to rule. That is the human condition: we are poised on the knife-edge between good and evil—given the duty, and the responsibility, to choose rightly.

Speedy change around aid

Controversial moves by the Government could see NZAID become part of MFAT, losing its current semi-autonomous status. The proposals are concerning aid and development organisations as they fear that it risks aid being turned into a political tool. Especially concerning is the speed at which this proposal is being considered and the lack of consultation.

Due process is important across varying spheres of life, but when it comes to government it becomes even more imperative. The government is elected to act in the best interests of the people and they have a responsibility to ensure that free and frank debate is heard, that issues are given the most robust hearing possible. Not only does this process ensure that wise decisions are made, but it also ensures that the public, those bound by the laws and policies enacted, believe they have been heard so that the resulting policies are accepted by them.

In the case of aid, New Zealand has a very active group of development organisations with expertise that has been developed in many cases over several decades. They are funded by a mixture of private giving and money channelled through NZAID and work closely with NZAID. They are more aware than anyone of the practical issues around the proposed changes, difficulties such as how to then deal with the synchronisation of our aid with Australia's and what having to align priorities with areas like defence might mean. They hold many legitimate concerns about the changes and are fiercely opposed to them.

Aid is and always will be messy. Working to bring about positive change in areas that often lack sound governance, basic infrastructure, social cohesion and fertile land is not easy. The reality though is that we can and do make progress in areas where we choose to roll our sleeves up. NZAID may not be perfect, but there were good reasons for establishing it as a semi-autonomous body several years ago at the OECD's recommendation. Rather than looking to radically alter the structure yet again, we need to ask how can we improve the one that is there?

Using a department with a degree of separation from New Zealand's foreign policy department makes it more likely that New Zealand government funded aid is distributed based on its ability to meet the greatest need, which is after all the point of aid. If the Government has concerns about the effectiveness of New Zealand's aid budget, it should be working with the organisations that know most about it and asking them what would help make their work more effective. It should be encouraging public discussion not shutting it down.

• Find out more about the proposed changes and the concerns of the development organisations
• Read more about why due process is important

ACT, free votes and the party system

ACT Leader Rodney Hide addressed his party conference last week, proposing the rather novel idea that ACT MPs should be free to think, and to vote, for themselves. Arguing that his caucus are "all strong minded individualists with opinions of their own," Mr Hide encouraged "lively debate" and emphasised that, apart from votes on confidence and supply, each MP will have a "free vote" on other issues, with no one "required to vote the way of other ACT MPs." While loosening of the party system is long overdue, that this proposal comes from ACT highlights one of the major dilemmas of MMP. When MPs are in Parliament not at the direct behest of the electorate but by virtue of party membership, to what extent should they be allowed freedom to take independent positions?

The traditional view of representation has been that MPs are primarily accountable to their constituents and local districts, offering themselves for election as a representative. The advent of MMP changed all this by introducing the concept of List MPs, some of whom may have been previously rejected by the electorate but returned to Parliament through the party list system. It is then understandable that, in an MMP environment, the parties have more power, because, especially in the case of a caucus like ACT, the MPs were elected primarily as representatives of the party—only Mr Hide has an electorate.

But, that said, although the ACT MPs are not accountable to a local area directly, they are accountable for the ideas and principles the party stands for—the same ones they stood on. Parties coalesce around ideas, as well as personalities, and thrive on discussion, debate and dissent. As Mr Hide also pointed out, "leaders who dictate their party's vote" and parties who let that happen "don't last." It is those who welcome honest debate, based on principle, which are self renewing, and able to build for the future.

Some loosening of the party system will not mean the end of ACT, or the demise of essential parliamentary discipline. Rather, if MPs wander too far from the philosophy, policy and approach of a particular party, it is unlikely the party will place them high on the list at the next election. That said, if robust debate is occurring in caucus, is it necessary to endorse MPs dissenting in the chamber? MPs can already vote against their party if they feel that a particular Bill is not in harmony with its principles, they just may have to face consequences for doing so. At the end of the day parliamentary process is something which involves the careful balancing of coherence within parties and accountability to the electorate. Only time can tell whether this new move is a positive step in that balancing act.

• Read Rodney Hide's speech