How do we handle a mentally unwell MP?
Igot the impression this week that commentators and National Party figures who poured scorn on MP Jami-Lee Ross for his transgressions should be feeling ashamed of themselves.
Apparently we should have known Ross was mentally unwell and needed careful handling. This, of course, is entirely predictable in a climate where criticism of anyone outside the norm is seen as insensitive, reinforcing stereotypes, part of the problem etc.
I certainly don’t feel any remorse for joining the chorus of condemnation of Ross and I’m not sure the gloves should go back on, even now. This week we are expected to believe that Ross’ mental illness was behind all his bad decisions leading up to his expulsion from the National Party caucus. Yet we don’t know any details about his illness, other than that it required allowances to be made. He could be paranoid, narcissistic, have a split personality, be delusional, depressed, all of the above, or none.
People labouring under those conditions obviously make bad decisions but so do people who overrate their abilities and whose judgment is coloured by vindictiveness. Some people just have a bad temperament. How is anybody to know what drives the offending behaviour?
It’s also hard to know whether the bad behaviour caused such pressure that it led to Ross’ mental illness or whether the mental illness led to the errant behaviour.
It seems in Ross’ case, that he was put under pressure when he was suspected of leaking Simon Bridges’ expenses. Then he was confronted with his marital indiscretions and his allegedly attitude to some women. That apparently caused his first breakdown. He then appeared to recover enough to mount a campaign to reveal a taped conversation with Bridges that was supposed to prove skulduggery relating to party donations.
He fell short and was justifiably vilified for his treachery. Then he had another breakdown.
So what are we to believe? That it was all a big mistake due to his unspecified mental illness or that he became mentally unwell in a stressful and isolated situation where he looked far from heroic?
Maybe the party could have handled this differently. Clearly Ross is not mentally resilient enough for the cut-throat game that politics can be but how is that unsuitability to be identified?
Imagine a scenario in which Ross showed himself to be mentally unstable and was politely told he needed to get out of politics and leave the party, even if just for his own sake. You can just see the outcry if he went public and claimed his mental health issues, that he believed had no effect on his performance, had led to his callous party asking him to step aside.
If he was a pilot, or a judge or a journalist or a truck driver, he would be told to have a rest or find another job. Why should we make more allowances for an MP?
MPs also have personal responsibilities to avoid situations where their disability is exacerbated and leads to poor decisions. It’s not too much to expect people earning the salary and perks to which MPs are entitled to act responsibly.
In addition, we have to be sure mental illness is not being used as an excuse. A person charged with murder can plead insanity but must show they could not distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the offending.
Such a high standard is inappropriate for ordinary living but if we are told to absolve Ross because of mental illness then the onus should be on him to show he was incapacitated to the extent he could not make good decisions.
Journalists are now in an invidious position. Let’s assume Ross, looking poised and comfortable, calls a press conference to announce more revelations about his former friends in the National Party. Do we ignore him because of his underlying illness or do we treat him as a flawed individual, assume his mental illness in under control, and report what he has to say, based on its merits?
I think it’s great we are becoming far more open about mental illness but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have the highprofile, high-paying, highly responsible position and expect people to make all sorts of allowances.
On Wednesday we celebrated our environmental champions at this year’s Southland Community Environment Awards.
All the nominees were worthy of recognition and many have been making a difference in our communities and the environment for some time.
The special councillors’ award is presented to a nominee who is particularly well aligned to the council’s vision for a thriving Southland. This year’s winner was Bluff 2024, a passionate, proactive and visionary group of people undertaking beautifying projects and enhancing the town’s identity. You can see all the videos of nominees on our Facebook page and website.
Earlier this month, I spent some time in Australia looking at how the water reforms of the past 20 years have played out.
I was part of a Local Government New Zealand regional council study tour and I think all those who attended will have taken home some valuable insights.
The focus was on the huge Murray-Darling catchment flowing through four states – Queensland, Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Victoria.
The tour started in Canberra, where we caught a glimpse of some of this city’s planned features, with its central wagon wheel design. The central spoke starts at the war memorial museum, crosses Lake Burley Griffin, and finishes at the Australian parliament buildings.
Looking at the monuments in honour of those who made the supreme sacrifice from many battlefields was impressive with its scale and setting. With the 100-year anniversary of the armistice fast approaching, I couldn’t help but feel empathy for the fallen and the impact their losses had on advancing the nationhood of two young countries.
While the four-day tour through three states was too fleeting to make judgments on the success of their water reforms, they have established minimum flows into the river system and significantly improved the salinity levels in the lower reaches of the Murray River.
Clearly this massive catchment was extremely over-allocated and reached crisis point following a succession of dry years, forcing the politicians to take some decisive actions to try and improve the situation.
The main thrust of the plan was to claw back 20 per cent of historic water use to an environmental allocation that would be used for establishing minimum flows, flushing flows and restoration projects, such as restoring historic wetlands.
The gains that have been made have come at a considerable cost, both financially and socially in some communities. The key enabler to the success of the strategy was to give a perpetual water allocation to everyone based on existing use. The entitlement was separated from land holdings, creating a tradable water commodity.
This enabled Government to buy back some of the landholders’ entitlements for cash or in exchange for funding the capital cost of installing more efficient water infrastructure on farms. There was also a belief the market would ensure that water would move to the most efficient use.
One of the take-home messages for me was that as soon as you classify anything as a tradable commodity, there will be unexpected outcomes.
When it comes to the question do we value water (or do we put a value on water) I believe most of us place a high value on water and the need to maintain and enhance its quality, but would stop short of making it a tradable commodity.
There have been winners and losers with water reforms in this region. Gains have been made, but there are lessons to be learned from our Tasman neighbour. It appeared regions and communities with strong leadership focused on the opportunities rather than the threats have done better than others.
The Murray-Darling catchments
Looking at the monuments in honour of those who made the supreme sacrifice from many battlefields was impressive.
land area is larger than New Zealand. Its flow is almost totally managed through a series of dams and weirs. The complexity of its management on a daily basis was amazing; delivering water to meet arranged demand.
Its operation seemed to have much more in common with an electricity grid than a river system. The Manapouri Power scheme and the Waiau River are our only catchment that I could draw any comparison with. Ironically the Snowy River Power scheme diverts water inland, while the Manapouri Scheme diverts water out to the coast. In both cases there is an increase in riverbank sediment loss due to their manipulated flows.
Environment Minister David Parker’s announcement this month of his plans to fast track improvements in water quality posed more questions than answers.
Reading between the lines, some of the proposed changes will be viewed positively by regional councils, but the signalling of significant changes to intensive winter grazing and winter forage crops on sloping ground with no detail, is a concern.
Hopefully we will get an opportunity to share with the policy makers the significant work we have carried out in this area and the science that supports it, because at the end of the day we all share the same goals.
Let’s hope that working together we can achieve David Parker’s aim of ‘‘practical and enduring solutions’’ because Southland does have winters, and stock have to be fed.