A tale of two petitions
March 19th, 2013 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarI’ve blogged on the leaked comments showing that Labour, Greens and the unions spent probably around $400,000 (mainly taxpayer funded) on gaining enough signatures for their referendum petition.
I thought it would be useful to contrast that with the previous successful petition, on the smacking issue.
I e-mailed the organiser, Larry Baldock, on how they got enough signatures and they did it the old fashioned way. They didn’t use taxpayer money to hire people to collect signatures. Larry says:
My wife and I spent almost 16 months travelling around NZ almost 4 times, some of the time in a sign written camper van collecting signatures in towns and cities, at AMP shows, field days and any events like V8’s, home shows etc. Many days on the beach at Mt Maunganui. Some elderly supporters, spent many days each week right through winter sitting at a table outside a Post shop and collected thousands of signatures. There are many stories!
Such a contrast to having 10 paid staff work on co-ordinating the petition and using taxpayer funding to pay people to collect signatures. What Larry and others did is what CIRs are meant to be about – the public petitioning Parliament. Not the losing parties in an election trying to over-ride the election result.
Now the smacking petition got their signatures and a referendum was held. The result was beyond over-whelming. In response to the question:
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
87% voted no. Now one can quibble that the use of the term “good” is a bit loaded, but anyone who seriously thinks the result would have been vastly different with deletion of that word is deluded.
The referendum was held at the end of a two year high profile debate on the anti-smacking law. It is silly to suggest that NZers did not know exactly what they were voting for. Maybe a slightly differently worded question would have got say 80% in favour instead of 87%. But that result was a massive landslide, You just can not credibly suggest that there was not a majority against the ban on correctional smacking.
Also polls every year since the referendum has shown a vast majority think that the law should allow correctional smacking that is reasonable (the old law allowed reasonable force). Family First have released the 2013 one which Curia did for them. I think the question is quite fair. In full it says:
In 2007 Parliament passed a law that removes a defence of reasonable force for parents who smack a child to correct their behaviour, but states the Police have discretion not to prosecute if they consider the offence was inconsequential.
Do you think the anti-smacking law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law?
So the question include what the law change was, specifically mentions the inclusion of the Police discretion and asks if they think correctional smacking should be legal, if reasonable. Now I am sure some can and will quibble over exact wording but considering the results were 77% said yes and only 18% no I am utterly confident that any alternate wording would produce much the same result, so long as it wasn’t totally slanted (such as should parents be able to assault their children).
There can be no doubt that the majority of New Zealanders want correctional smacking to be legal, and there was a referendum that said so by a massive 7:1 margin.
Now one can have the view that a party’s policy should triumph over a non binding referendum. I certainly hold that view.
But what is absolute hypocrisy is to be a party that ignored the results of this 2009 referendum, and then two years later to then demand that the Government should break its election policy on the basis of the asset sales referendum.
What many do not know is that a bill was selected for first reading in Parliament in 2010, just a couple of weeks after the referendum result. The bill would have implemented the referendum result by amending the law so that:
it is no longer a criminal offence for parents, and those in the place of parents, to use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children’s behaviour and there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force
The law was basically identical to what the referendum called for. Now how did Labour and Greens vote on this bill, just three weeks after the referendum? The voted it down (along with every other party except ACT) at first reading.
Now I think National should have voted for the bill, but at least National is consistent that their party’s policy over-rides a referendum result. They have never ever said that referenda should trump elections.
But the actions of Labour and Greens in 2010 show that they are happy to ignore referendum results – unless it is a result they personally agree with.
Their asset sales referendum is nothing to do with democracy. It is mainly a device for them to use taxpayers money to get people onto their e-mail and direct mail lists.
So every time Russell Norman or David Shearer demands that the Government should not proceed with asset sales due to the proposed referendum, someone should ask them when will they be voting to amend the Crimes Act to allow correctional smacking. There is no response they can give which isn’t hypocritical.
And we should change the law to stop parliamentary parties from spending their parliamentary resources on promoting a referendum petition. CIRs are meant to be initiated by citizens, not by the losing parties in an election campaign.
Related posts:
- The parliamentary purchased referendum achieved
- Smacking Referendum petitions falls short – but only just
- According to Labour the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales
- So when will Labour and Greens vote to repeal anti-smacking law?
March 19th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
I see it more as a clever and tax payer funded method to create a database of voters to target at the next election. No need for any increases in newspaper adverts, hoardings, meet and greet the constituents rambling walks, etc.
They now have digital and postal access to around 330K voters.
All paid for by the tax payer above and beyond electioneering costs.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:15 pm
In my view the results of smacking petition were invalid..why? because the question cant be answered with a yes or no. Had the question been:
“is using a horse whip or wooden plank as part of good parental discipline acceptable” (as was used in defense cases as ‘reasonable force’)
then I think 87 percent of people would have voted no.
I think the majority of the people who voted yes to that question thought a smack on the bottom was ok …But thats not what was being presented to the courts.
The have been two other CIR’s one by fire fighters which i think should have been upheld and one to reduce the number of MP’s to 99 which i think shouldn’t because it would have damaged our political system (a system where the number of MP’s gradually rises based on the population)
March 19th, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Gerrit (99) it is a dangerous ploy because if the media get hold of them doing this, then they will be shot to pieces and you can guarantee it will come out.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Tristan, I was one of those collecting signatures and I know how the law would work with either the Borrows or Boscawen amendment. If National had of respected the majority of good parents the law would have banned any implement so that would not be able to be used as a defense in court.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:28 pm
I am fine with political parties (including those in Parliament) using CIR for political purposes like happened here. That the CIR Act has been used in this way does not stop anyone else doing one “properly”, or detract from the intention of the law in any way.
Using Parliamentary funding is a different matter however. It is clearly allowed, but it shouldn’t be. That’s not what it was for. I would note that the National Party isn’t in a position to complain about the use of money being against the spirit of the rules etc. The Select Committee considering the Parliamentary spending bill was specifically asked to look at this, and decided that this should be allowed. It was unanimous on this point, including the support of National and Act.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
“And we should change the law to stop parliamentary parties from spending their parliamentary resources on promoting a referendum petition. CIRs are meant to be initiated by citizens, not by the losing parties in an election campaign.”
Either that or repeal the CIR Act altogether if it is not made binding. I doubt if there will ever be another genuine referendum considering the arrogant way both major parties treated the referendum.
My vote is going to the Conservative Party or NZF
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
What’s worse is that the referendum on MMP had less of a mandate than the section 59 one (anti-smacking). When asked, Labour leader Mike Moore, said that ‘the people didn’t speak on Saturday. They screamed.’
Labour and its selective hearing.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
See DPF’s comment about biased questions above.
No one was let off after being prosecuted for using a horse whip on a child, and of the two cases I know of that involved a “plank” of wood, one was successfully prosecuted and in the other the “plank” was about the size of a ruler.
The old law allowed the judge to look past the headlines and look at the full detail of the case. The new one means any parent who uses physicial discliplne, no matter how reasonable, is guilty.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Override the election result!!!
Disingenuous much ???
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Tristam: You miss the point. The referendum did not call for the law to be repealed and things to go back to what they were.
The bill voted down by Parliament three weeks after the referendum would have implemented the referendum desire. It would have allowed reasonable correctional smacking but banned the use of any implement such as planks or whips.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Tristan: Are you actually deliberately being a dickhead? Under the old law, you could have OFFERED s.59 as a defence to hitting a child across the head with a piece of rebar (I use this Americanism because you are probably a youth), but it would never have flown…
in the “horsewhip” case, which Bradford trotted out all around the country, she failed to mention a couple of tiny details: 1) that the “child” in question was 14, and had a history of hitting his mother with whatever was to hand; and 2) that on the occasion in question, he was armed with a piece of water pipe…
DPF: You fail to mention that the 2010 bill in question – for which only ACT voted – was in fact the more fullsome version of the so called “Borrows amendment” proposed by that parliamentary giant, Chester Borrows…..who two years later failed to vote for what was effectively his own Bill because the Nats were whipped…still, four years later he’s got a portfolio outside cabinet for being a good boy, so all was not lost…
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Excellent work Tristan. You have successfully derailed the comment thread to be about a completely different referendum, on a completely different topic, arguing a completely different point.
NOW EVERYONE – back to the discussion about the (mis)use of taxpayer dollars and the circumventing of the CIR process for political parties’ ends.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:09 pm
I am still firmly of the belief that National could have gotten 60% when they ousted Labour had they not passed the stupid anti smacking bill.
New Zealanders still overwhelmingly consider a controlled smack to be entirely appropriate as part of a disciplinary “arsenal” (along with a usual combo of tellings off, removal of privileges and positive reinforcement.) John Key could use this as a very effective weapon to warn people off the Greens and Labour. I think parents instinctively know that they, as the ones who love, care and provide for their children, should also have first say on how they are raised. As HC had never had kids, I don’t believe she had any concept of why parents were so strongly opposed to her meddling with their families.
But to the initial point, it certainly shows how hollow the anti asset referendum was. Compared to how strong public opinion was to the anti smacking debate.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:12 pm
“So every time Russell Norman or David Shearer demands that the Government should not proceed with asset sales due to the proposed referendum, someone should ask them when will they be voting to amend the Crimes Act to allow correctional smacking”
Yes but DPF, nobody will ask them will they because the media is enlightened, urbane, classy – not horrid and brutal like the great unwashed.
Anyway it’s too late, Bradford has poisoned future generations so now parents will reason with their two year olds instead of whacking them round the bum to show them they are two year olds. (Except PI’s – god bless ‘em!) I’m already seeing it happen.
The s59 problem was never there; I believe it was just fuck wit judges. Then as now.
I only ever heard it once, but just before the law was finally done and dusted, someone or other on national radio FINALLY asked Sue Bradford the key question: ‘Do you see any difference between a smack on the bum or a belt round the head with a piece of 4 x 2?’
The answer: ”No they are both assault”
Black and white.
Vote:I think I would cry tears of joy if the law was overturned or amended as per Borrows. Just to see Bradford’s face.
March 19th, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Sorry…of course Chet only had to wait three years to receive the highly influential portfolio of Minister for Courts for not making a fuss….
So DFF: Are you saying that if the vote was – say – 95% in favour of reintroducing capital punishment for aggravated murder (which now attracts a minimum NPP of 17 years) you would STILL say that governments would be justified in ignoring such a referendum? If so, that is government by a “we know better” elite, rather than democracy, surely?
[DPF: I'd say the the Government should implement the policy they were elected on. If people feel strongly enough about the Govt not implementing capital punishment then they can elect a Government which does promise to implement it]
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:23 pm
That may depend on whether the government was elected with a policy of not having the death penalty.
And I would still like to think that it would be wrong for any party to whip support for the death penalty, whether there was a referendum or not.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Graeme: Unusually poor wording for you…I assume you mean that IF there was such a CIR and IF some MP got a Bill drawn on the subject which implemented the result, you would not support whipping on it either way? Or do I misread you?
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Personally, I favour wholesale repeal of the CIR Act 1993. There have only been four to date, out of numerous petitions and proposals. Reserve referenda for constitutional reforms and have done with it altogether.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:36 pm
But you raise a very interesting point Graeme…if the Conservatives campaigned on holding a binding referendum on CP, and implementing it if there was a 75% or more “yes” vote, that would certainly make NZ politics interesting for the wider world…
I believe the CP question has been polled a number of times since my book came out 14 years ago, and it gets around 60% in favour every time…
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Are there any more ways in which the Greens could have had less credibility on this?
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Don’t National pay you to be a pollster DPF? and wouldn’t they use Taxpayer money to do it? or am I mistaken if so what is the difference. (genuine question, I’m not trying to be a smart-arse)
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:38 pm
DPF,
There are two separate issues in there. One is the use of taxpayers money for things that it perhaps shouldn’t be used for even if it is legal. I would include election campaign financing in that.
But a CIR is a public petition by virtue of having collected signatures FROM THE PUBLIC. Who collected the signatures is irrelevant (so long as people gave their signatures freely and were not deceived).
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
[DPF: I'd say the the Government should implement the policy they were elected on. If people feel strongly enough about the Govt not implementing capital punishment then they can elect a Government which does promise to implement it]
I think that is a slightly silly response, Not many people would vote for a party based purely on one issue. Though I’m sure there are some that do just that. If they promised to implement captial punishment and then introduced a 90% tax rate because they actually believed they were given a mandate at the last election. I’m sure there would be a swift changing of the minds now wouldn’t there!
I get really pissed off when a government makes laws they didn’t campaign on. Gay marriage being one of them, Meddling with Auckland been another – I don’t care if it passes or not but its not something that I voted National into power to acheive which means (to me) they are wasting precious time to implement the agenda they were actually voted in for.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Labour politicians may have thousands stashed away offshore, but in New Zealand they are morally bankrupt. They do not know the difference between right and wrong, hence their blatant hypocrisy.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Multimike: Since DPF is a busy man, and since I am pretty sure of the answer, I will presume to do so for him…Curia probably does poll for the Nats, and possibly often…there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided the costs are met from PARTY sources and not from PARLIAMENTARY funding, i.e. taxpayers money… That was the whole issue with Helen and the Politburo and the pledge card…we all paid for it because it was, at source, taxpayers money which paid for it…
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Given the test of clarity in writing is whether it can be understood, I must have failed, but I don’t see any imprecision in my remarks.
It addresses two matters: first, your challenge to DPF about whether it would be acceptable for a government to ignore an overwhelming majority at a CIR. My suggestion was that DPF’s answer may hinge on whether that party was elected with a particular policy. That is, if a party was elected on a no-death penalty platform, DPF would consider it proper for it to ignore a referendum result on it. Those who feel strongly enough about the death penalty should 1) have voted for someone else at the election; or (2) vote for someone else at the next election.
Second, I was making a distinct point about parliamentary voting on the death penalty. I am saying that it would be unconscionable for a party to force its MPs to vote for the death penalty. And that this would still be the case if there was a referendum with overwhelming (e.g. 95%) support.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Thanks for clearing that up DG. Assuming those ‘party sources’ are not taxpayers (which would then make him a hypocrite) then I whole-heartedly agree. I don’t think there is anything wrong with an MP acting as a citizen and getting this off the ground but paying people to gather signatures is pretty shit, even if it is within the rules.
Then again – what else would they spend the money on? Clearly they don’t have enough to purchase a clue on how to run a country.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:06 pm
But you raise a very interesting point Graeme…if the Conservatives campaigned on holding a binding referendum on CP, and implementing it if there was a 75% or more “yes” vote, that would certainly make NZ politics interesting for the wider world…
1. The Conservatives can campaign on a holding a binding referendum on whatever they like. They’d need support from at least half of Parliament to actually hold one.
2. If the Conservatives come out with such a policy, and are doing well enough in the polls that it looks like there may be even a chance they will make it into Parliament, other parties will be asked whether they too support holding such a referendum, or would be willing to go along with it as part of a support deal. I predict they won’t.
3. If any of them do, or even a single candidate nominated on any list says they would support such a bill if drawn from the ballot, that party will not be getting my vote. There are few things I support less than the death penalty. Last time I thought about it, I think I came up with genocide and slavery, though I guess I can’t rule out there being a few others.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:09 pm
I know DPF won’t (and shouldn’t) answer, but I very much imagine that Curia receives income derived from Parliamentary funding sources.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Multimike: I was going to say the Greens wouldnt have had their own money to do it…but the rather splendid irony is that it is ACT, supposedly the party of the “Rich C..ts” which was and still is the party always struggling for money, not the Greens…lots of their members are well off members of the chattering classes, with mortgage free house in the tony suburbs…and lots of spare money to donate to worthy causes…
That said, the bastards probably STILL used taxpayer money!! They are allowed you see, because they protect Gaia, and many of their members are gentle vegetarians…
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Graeme, that is why I do not support CIR. I do not mean just because or CP but because legislation cannot not be drafted properly by a referendum. What I would like to see the Conservative Party or NZF adopt a voters veto as an option.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Graeme: Wash your mouth out with soap suggesting our host would take taxpayers’ money to do polls!
But lest the righties get all aroused – in the fuller sense of that word – I certainly wouldn’t be campaigning even for a referendum on CP…If the judges wont use the LWOP we now have for the mongrel who killed little JJ Lawrence by kicking him to death, they wont pass a death sentence either….and I would never be in favour of a mandatory death penalty…it’s interesting how many on the right still think its a runner though…
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
@DG – HAHAHAHAHA, I read your last your sentence how I imagined Jeremy Clarkson would say it, hilarious!
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Our democracy is in a shambles.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
“ACT, supposedly the party of the “Rich C..ts” which was and still is the party always struggling for money”
How was your recent conference at Alan Gibbs’ estate, David? Could he afford to offer you a sausage roll or two, or did the delegates have to take up a collection to buy fish and chips?
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Tom, how leg wetting! Actually, between you and me, Gibbs just writes out cheques for $100k whenever the leader asks him… he and the other members of what in NZ pass for the “military industrial complex” so beloved of stage 2 Politics students…
Yep, the secret’s out…that’s how it works…. (but since you ask, lunch was included in the attendance fee)
And that’s why, since ACT was formed in 1995, it’s been in government ever since! It’s all because we have so many rich mates!
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Actually Tom, there’s a topic for your Masters, when it comes time for a dissertation: “Wealthy backers, donations and political power: election results 1995-2015″ (There must always be a colon in there…)
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 9:17 pm
The smacking issue is a doddle; the real question we should be asking is why aren’t we having a referendum of gay marriage; this will have far more ramifications on society than smacking?
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 10:12 pm
And John Key was instrumental in making the anti smacking law a reality. He endorses people breaking the law and smacking their child. Anyone who suppports passing a law that no one wants, is only workable when people ignore it and break it is not fit to be a parliamentarian.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Why change a law that is working perfectly. Not a single parent has been prosecuted for a reasonable correctional smack.
Vote:March 19th, 2013 at 10:38 pm
How can Labour ever credibly rely on the result of a CIR anyway? Remember the Norm Withers petition? It was appallingly worded. But whichever way you look at it, 92% (a record for a CIR?) who signed the petition agreed with the proposition that punters who beat folks should spend a long time in the big house (Norm’s elderly mum had been viciously assaulted). Announcing that Labour was going to ignore the result, the then Labour Minister of Corrections, Matt Robson, said that there was no evidence that long prison sentences had a detterent effect. Any Minister of Corrections worth his or her salt would have known that imprisonment has at least 6 purposes (retribution being an important one) and that deterrence (whether general or individual) didn’t feature in the referdendum issue. It was patronising at its worst. Robson was a prick.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 6:03 am
quote Farrar
” Now I think National should have voted for the bill, but at least National is consistent that their party’s policy over-rides a referendum result. They have never ever said that referenda should trump elections.”
I think some double speak here Mr Fararr. It OK for we NZ Nat to ignore referendum but not them. Labour Green.
Vote:Otherwise a good column but do please go on and tell us where in NAT party policy there was reference to the smacking law. Many of us were soundly disappointed at the PM’s casual indifference,.and his flippant nonsense comments on this issue. I for one became a the NZ First advocate from that moment.
Now though I hear Peters talking about buy back of assets proves he must go with Labour , and that seals it we must grovel our way back to the NZ Nat camp whether we like you or not. It is absolutely imperative we do not have a Labour/ Green/ NZ First short term Government printing money in 2014
March 20th, 2013 at 6:14 am
Dexter (229) Says:
March 19th, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Why change a law that is working perfectly. Not a single parent has been prosecuted for a reasonable correctional smack
Dexter, agreed that there have been no absurd prosecutions , but we wanted the law to remain as it was before mad Sue Bradford got at it. Everybody understood it was not a licence to bash, but we wanted to be parents with proper authority.
Vote:I can remember my own daughter when she was little somehow knew that the most effective tantrums were to be held in the supermarket because Dad would be too embarrassed to take corrective action. Wrong. I gave her a smack on her hand there and then and after that there were no more supermarket tantrums. If I were to be prosecuted for that today, I wouldn’t be surprised if I received donations for defence. John Key let us down in this issue right at the start. Notice also above Chuck Bird was motivated by this issue toward NZ First.
March 20th, 2013 at 7:51 am
pq, I said either the Conservation Party or NZF. I share your view about a compulsory buy back of shares.
I do disagree with your of no parent being prosecuted for a smack – many have. Family First has a list but I hope you remember the case in Christchurch was a father was prosecuted for flicking his son’s. He won on appeal but JK did not keep his word and change the law.
It is not just prosecutions that are the issue but the investigations, removal of children and breaking up families in the meantime of a smack.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 8:06 am
I don’t see a problem with it. National pissed away $425k on Longstone via Parata. Labour spent $400k on a petition that many people support including National voters.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 8:13 am
NZ First have no credibility when it comes to the anti-smacking law. At the time of the laws passing the then NZ First president Dale Jones said that they as a party should oppose the law. The party leader, Winston disagreed and at the final reading the majority of NZ First MPs voted in favour of the law. 4 votes in favour and only 3 against.
Vote:If all the other parties in parliament had of abstained and only NZ First voted, the undemocratic law would still have passed.
Shame on NZ First.
March 20th, 2013 at 8:33 am
a) there have been a number of cases
Vote:b) prosecution isn’t actually even the biggest problem – the law allows CYFS to count even the most trivial act of assault as child abuse hence leading to the removal of that child. This means that pretty much any parent can be subject to years of legal battles to have their kids returned, should someone report them and the CYFS case worker take a dislike to them. The situation was already bad enough before the law change.
c) what was the purpose of the law? You say it is “working perfectly”, but what was it intended to do? Bradford implied that it would stop child abuse – it hasn’t done that. It was intended to stop smacking, it hasn’t done that either. So what part of it is working “perfectly”?
March 20th, 2013 at 8:43 am
The battle was within an inch of being lost until John Key stepped in and blew it. Any consistend measure across parliment would have seen it defeated, the only way it was struggling through was because Labour was pressuring it’s MPs to violate their conscience.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 8:46 am
Yes… but any public support you raised would be matched by a campaign to portray you as a good parent. I remember one parent who was visited by the police for pulling the kids off a trampoline – Sue Bradford went on TV and implied she had a history of violence and suggested she go do a course.
Only problem was, the woman’s job was to teach one those courses.
Needless to say, SB lost a supporter. But sadly there are still many out there who don’t realise how the game works.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 8:52 am
*bad parent
Vote: