Written By: - Date published: 9:27 am, June 27th, 2008 - 46 comments
Categories: cartoons, child discipline, john key -
Tags: mike moreu, smacking referendum
A good cartoon by Mike Moreu this morning about Key’s confusing stance on the smacking referendum.
Though of course, as a_y_b pointed out yesterday, this approach isn’t at all confusing if all you’re trying to do is to win an election by accentuating and exploiting negative perceptions of your opponent.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Will Key complain that he is being misrepresented by MM?
Funny you say that andy, apparently he was talking about the Australian smacking referendum.
Moreu has got it exactly right. This focus on the date of the referendum, while ignoring its purpose, is nonsense.
So there are two possibilites here. Maybe a visiting rightie (of the sane variety) can explain it for me.
Either 1) Everybody knows that the referendum date is not the real issue, but it’s a useful stick to hit Clark with, and so why not use it, all’s fair in love and politics, etc. In other words, a tactic, not a principle. Not important, all part of the game.
Or 2) People genuinely, passionately believe that the referendum date DOES matter, because then pressure can be put on an (expected) incoming Key government to repeal the Section 59 law before 2009.
Which leaves two further possibilites:
a) Key is lying about leaving the law alone. He secretly plans to change it.
b) Key sincerely means what he says, but the law’s opponents are confident he will immediately flip-flop under pressure, as soon as becomes PM.
Neither a) nor b) is much of a recommendation for our “future Prime Minister”, is it?
“if all you’re trying to do is to win an election by accentuating and exploiting negative perceptions of your opponent.”
Isn’t this exactly what Labour is trying to do ( but by the poll numbers failing to achieve.)
[no, every other party campaigns primarily on it's own policies. remember when National had policies? SP]
Key is lucky, to the average punter the whole referendum timing and status in law is quite fuzzy. He is playing to that! I was trying to explain it to a an average punter last night and I confused myself, then we gave up and moved on to the cricket (BTW NZ you looked like poor winners).
The incumbents will always be looked at poorly in these situations i.e. Not listening to the voters/out of touch…
Crikey
Not sure why this is worthy of debate – it’s a pretty simple public relations/political opportunity for Key as Bryan and Andy point out.
Andy
I’m sure you’re right. And it will work, short-term.
Long-term, it’s a disaster. Raise expectations which you don’t intend to satisfy. Very, very foolish strategy – especially when you’re at 50% in the polls and you don’t NEED to do it.
HS – it’s interesting because of the repercussions if he does win the PM’s office, and also because it paints an interesting picture of Key. Is he sincere or not? If he’s merely grandstanding for votes but doesn’t intend to do as he says, what does that say about the preferred candidate for PM?
Helen Clark is aware and is on record as saying that the referendum timing is crucial to her own success at the polls. Fine.
It has been suggested that to go with a referendum at a later date would cost more money. Ok then.
Helen’s point is that the referendum although costly will be timed for sometime next year, for logistical reasons, and some feel that this is just an avoidance tactic to minimise possible polls damage.
Key has indicated that the law is working fine. – so he is exactly in line with the s.59 reform supporters, but at the same time he is happy is to indicate that he is open to what some people have to say.
Now, how he would act upon receiving the results of the referendum, is a completely different issue, isn’t it?
The fact is there will be a referendum if the signatures hold up – that is the law.
But some appear to be under the misapprehension that laws are changed or even written by referendum. This isn’t strictly true, although it has happened on occasion. In fact, if he were to do nothing Key would be ignoring the will of ‘some people’ not ‘the people’.
Funnily enough, here at the Standard there is a strong advocacy in favour of listening to the will of ‘some people’ under the MMP system, but, here, if Key indicates that he is in tune with that concept, you seem to see that as evidence that he is an anti-democrat.
Personally I think the s.59 amendment, like the EFA like the ETS, like the Anti Terrorism Act are well conceived in principle, but evidently clumsily written by people who are vainly trying to punch above their collective weights when it comes to consulting, drafting and administering their own laws. This is probably why the referendum was called for in the first place.
Monkey-boy
Let’s say that 75% vote “No” to the referendum question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
What should happen next?
The way the question is written is so unclear any government could just ignore it.
If they had written a question such as “do you wish to restore s.59″ then it would be pretty clear cut, but the question as it stands is pretty meaningless.
Monkey-boy, where do you get that people at “the Standard” are in favour of listening only to “some people” under MMP? And where do you get the idea that people here think it’s anti-democratic for Key to think the same?
Could you elaborate on those points, I wouldn’t want to accuse you of lying or making statements up without giving you a chance to explain yourself. Given you wrote it, I’m sure there are a few examples you can base your comments upon.
“It has been suggested that to go with a referendum at a later date would cost more money. Ok then.”
I gather that depends on the extent of advertising and such. A postal ballot negates the need for polling booth staffing, and has the added benefit of not confusing voters. There’s an important election going on, you don’t want people to be hung up with a terribly written question!
“This is probably why the referendum was called for in the first place.”
If the reason the referendum was called was to attack poorly written law, don’t you think it’s ironic that it’s being countered by an even more poorly-written question? God (and the bible bashers) works in mysterious ways, huh?
Sonic – that wouldn’t be nearly as emotive enough, and most people would probably ask “Why?” to your question – they don’t want that. They are after a symbolic victory that means nothing to those who understand the details but a fair bit to those who maybe are a bit peeved about the law and don’t care for the intricacies of referenda.
Gobsmacked – I don’t know, but your question does inadvertently endorse the wisdom of Key for not committing himself before the event, doesn’t it?
I mean, what if 75% say ‘Yes’?
Monkey Boy
Eh? Have you read the question? Is there a “Sue Bradford for PM” campaign sweeping the country?
Let’s live in the real world – the referendum is designed for only one answer, and it will get it. The word “good” is the giveaway.
So again, what should PM Key do? If the answer is “back his own judgement”, then the referendum is just a giant charade.
And if the referendum is a charade, who cares when it’s held?
gobby –
Eh? I thought I was already ahead of you re ‘the real world’ in my first post. Maybe you should read it again.
Matthew – I was honing in on the reference to ‘the people’ in the cartoon, and extrapolating from that, given that it was endorsed in the original thread. The other stuff was a reference to sometimes vitriolic defence of MMP v. FFP that sometimes arises in these pages.
In this instance Key gives the impression that he trusts the electorate to express its opinion now, which is the important advantage to have before an election – Clark’s approach indicates mistrust, and in this respect, I think that Key has scored quite well.
Matthew you even endorse this with your reference to ‘Bible Basher’ – it is a reductionistic and lazy dismissal of the situation IMO.
It’s not as if Key was against the legislation in the first place is it? As Helen enjoys reminding us: “Well he voted for it.”
Rules are rules boys,
They get their numbers, a referendum, no mater how dumb we think it is (and I don’t agree with it), the it’s gotta take place.
However there is plenty of time to hold it, even if Labour call an election slightly earlier (which I think Aunty H may do the worse the polls look for the party). Lets at least hold this ref so it’s $9m cheaper to you and I, the taxpayer?
Democracy and our pockets all win!
Monkey-Boy, I’m just trying to get a straight answer.
Let’s assume: There will be a referendum. The vote will be “No”.
Those are two pretty fair assumptions, aren’t they?
What should happen next?
Clark’s answer: The law should not be changed.
What is Key’s answer?
There are only 2 possible answers:
a) Same as Clark.
b) Change/repeal law.
If the answer is not b), then WHAT IS THE REFERENDUM FOR?
Sorry to shout, but FFS – if it’s not about changing the law, what is it about? A hobby for bored United Future ex-MPs?
Brownie,
1) It’s not cheaper to hold it concurrently with the election. See, for example, here.
2) There is no time to hold it. MoJ’s advice was that they would need to start planning in April, and they recommended against that given the petitions had not made the threshhold at that stage (and they still haven’t).
Anita
Gobsmacked,
The principles of democracy means that all should be heard – not just the ones we don’t like.
I think its dumb to but you ccan’t put a price on freedom of speech. It allows you to put your opinion here on the blog.
They have met the rules (at this point in time anyway) and therefore should have their day to be heard.
A day may come when you might have a minority view but the same right should be affordeed to you.
Don’t you think that this is fair?
Thanks Anita,
Where do your numbers come from? I admit I hadn’t seen these.
And does that mean that it will be more expensive that what the PM said or only slightly cheaper.
And who are the MoJ to say whats controversial and whats not – they are an independant, apolitical organisation, arn’t they?
I agree with Brownie. it’s probably an irrelevancy in legislative terms, but if people can raise the requisite 10% signatires they’re entitled to a referendum, and this lot should have one within the allotted timeframe of a year. If they get that, they have quite literally nothing to complain about: the process is working.
L
gobsmacked,
To be a pedant for a moment…
The petitioners don’t want to repeal anything, perhaps they want to unrepeal section 59 which was repealed already. So perhaps they are asking to reinstate the old section 59.
That said, I’m not sure that’s what they want as many agree that the old one was a bit unclear and maybe didn’t do what they wanted anyway. So perhaps they actually want a new piece of legislation, although if they do I don’t know what they want it to say.
Anyhow, they don’t want to repeal anything, and they really truly don’t want to repeal section 59
Brownie.
Those numbers are out of the MoJ briefing paper to the Minister in March, which includes their recommendation for a postal referendum.
MoJ are apolitical experts who can very sensibly say that a particular legislative change might prove controversial. If it’s controversial the amount of work they’d need to put in would be significantly higher, and the chances of it passing in a timely fashion are lower, as are the chances of it passing at all. All Ministries have to assess the likely public impact of any proposed legislative change to see what the likely cost and chance of success are.
“Controversial” is not the same as “politically sensitive”, which would be a less comfortable call for MoJ
Anita
Sorry all for the bad spellin, its pretty cold here in ChCh today and I find I’m getting dyslexic fnigers.
Brownie, absolutely, yes. If they have the signatures, they have a referendum. Even if the question is “Do you think NZ should invade Mars?”, if they have the signatures, then there’s a referendum. 100% agree. They meet the rules, all is fair.
But of course we would not invade Mars. Now I assume this referendum has a purpose. Therefore the politicians’ response to the referendum is what ultimately matters.
I do not think the petitioners are planning to win a referendum and then say “Woo hoo! Game over, we won”.
So Moreu’s cartoon has summed it up perefectly. The people must speak, then they must be ignored. Why then is the date on which they shall be ignored so important? It’s a charade, it’s transparent, and I’d rather John Key stopped insulting our intelligence.
And as I’ve said up-thread, he is raising expectations about the outcome, and since (probably) he’ll be PM by then, he’s buying himself a very angry majority, who voted “No” in the referendum … a referendum that HE is talking up.
Monkey boy – referring to people as bible bashers wasn’t a serious attempt to define the initiators of the referendum, but if it was I suppose you’d be right. Let’s not deliberately mix things up, though, shall we, I didn’t even say they should be ignored!
You still haven’t managed to explain listening to ‘some people’ in any meaningful way. If you’re refering to FPP vs MMP, well, it’s a democracy and by definition will happen as such under both systems, unless there’s a 100% vote in favour of something. That doesn’t happen unless there are guns involved.
So we have no problem with listening to some people, that’s democracy. The difference is that Key is talking about not listening to anyone. In these circumstances, listening to ‘some people’ will be meaningless, since the referendum will be useless in terms of giving something to listen to. So I pretty much support Key’s stance – let’s look at how well the law is working (no problems there, right?) instead of putting weight behind a loaded and subjective question.
Key isn’t saying he’ll listen to some people, he’s saying he won’t listen to any number of people. Yet he attacks Clark for not listening to the people. You don’t see the dichotomy?
Thanks Anita,
This is good stuff. However I think that the increase in budget to allow the CIR to cope with a 2008 election timing along with the increase workload is justified given the difference in price with the postal option 2008 (and they have they right to be heard immediatley) and also why would it slow the polling booths on election day? it will take an extra 20 secs for me to vote and the machinery for processing is allready there?
But then again I’m not the CEO. Perhaps this is just too much pressure for Mr Peden given the amount of extra time and money that the EFA has placed on his shoulders?
Gobsmacked,
You said “Therefore the politicians’ response to the referendum is what ultimately matters”
Missing the point here, it’s OUR opinion that matters. We are telling the politicians what we want – the ultimate expression of democracy. For them to tell us what matters plays into Nationals hands as far as the “nanny state” argument goes and is, by in large, a dictatorship in disguise!
And it’s not what Key is talking up, it’s the principles of democracy something we should all be talking up.
I take it you believe that democracy is a good thing?
And why would he want to “buy up” an angry majority? It doesn’t make sense.
Bill English, interviewed on Morning Report yesterday:
“Most of Parliament voted for the current legislation, but the referendum is not actually on the legislation.’
He is correct. But how many of the people signing the petition know that? For example, see Moreu’s cartoon above: “… if the public voted to repeal the law …”
They are not doing what they think they’re doing. This is the will of the people?
I’m sure Prime Minister-elect John Key will explain it to them, after they’ve voted, and celebrated. Good luck with that, John. In short: shit meets fan.
Brownie,
Various numbered points to make up for my scattered thoughts
1) They have a right to be heard within 12 months, no-one is suggesting that is under attack.
2) I agree that it would only take me a couple of extra seconds. But MoJ’s advice is that you and I are not representative of the majority of NZ – their experience with previous concurrent situations was that it was much more complex and confusing, and did cause significant delays in both voting and counting. I’m happy to trust their expert advice – it’s what we pay them to know
3) The EFA is mentioned in the briefing, the CEO was concerned that the differing campaign spending rules for referenda and elections would cause extra confusion. His advice seems sounds, and intuitively right
4) Finally, no-one’s mentioning there are actually two referenda in play at the moment. While we know the last possible decision date for Savill’s I think the one for Baldock’s is probably 3.5 months later (if it doesn’t make the numbers it gets another two months to collect then another two months to count – tho that is based on a set of possibly flawed assumptions). It’d be crazy to run one with the election if the other had to be postal.
Brownie, I care passionately about democracy, I’ve worked for it all my life. That’s why I hate to see the language of democracy being used fraudulently. And people’s confidence in democracy will be further undermined when they don’t get what they THINK they voted for (see 1980′s and 1990′s).
Nice post, Anita. Cheers.
GSmacked: have you signed a petition before? I’ll assume you have and remind you that the petion is headed by an explanation of what they want in the CIR. I didn’t sign it so I can’t say however to have a proper and legal petition, one must have an explanation as to what they are petitioning about and one needs to assume that at least 95% of those signing have a general ability to read.
It’s not up to Bill, John or even Helen to explain it to them, its up to them.
Its a logical argument. Anything else is just s##tstiring or getting hysterical over an argument or issue thats not there.
Brownie, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. I point you to Moreu’s cartoon again. Intellligent people think it’s about changing Section 59. Larry Baldock & co certainly sell it as such.
If the government (whoever it is) says it wasn’t about that, and so there’s “No change” after the referendum, that’s their problem.
The petitions didn’t have any explanation, just the questions.
This is from when the two petitions started being collected on the same sheet, I don’t think they had any more than this when they were being collected separately.
BTW for anyone who’s missed the second petition (you can see it on the bottom of the page on that link), isn’t the question appalling?!
Fair enough, GS.
It’s not a left or right issue – supposing Labour forms the next govt? They still have to go ahead with a referendum at some stage. Will the argument stay true for them as well?