Kiwiblog

1. 1,420,959 – No to correctional smacking as a criminal offence
2. 1,053,398 – 2008 Vote for National
3. 935,319 – 2005 Vote for Labour
4. 838,219 – 2002 Vote for Labour
5. 800,199 – 1999 Vote for Labour
6. 701,315 – 1996 Vote for National

The Herald reports:

Options for changing New Zealand’s approach to smacking children will go to the Cabinet on Monday after New Zealanders voted by 88 per cent that a smack should not be a criminal offence.

Well it is good to see that the voices of 1.4 million New Zealanders won’t just be ignored.

It was muffled by a low turnout of 54 per cent, including 0.3 per cent who spoiled their votes, so even the huge “no” vote fell just short of half of the enrolled electors.

That is not a low turnout for a referendum not held with an election. The referendum that chose MMP for the run-off with FPP had only a 55% turnout. So it was only 1% less than the choice of electoral system.

Prime Minister John Key said in Australia – where he is on an official visit – that voters had said strongly that “they don’t want good parents to be criminalised for a light smack”.

Yes, but that is not just saying they do not want to be prosecuted and convicted. It is saying they do not want it to be a criminal offence.

His own view was that the law was “working as it is now”.

But on Monday, he would take to the Cabinet “options which fall short of changing the law but will provide comfort for parents about this issue”.

There will be a lot of interest in these. However I believe that the law should be changed. The reason is quite simple.

The criminal code is there to reflect the views of the public on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. And almost every provision in the criminal code would have 99% of adult New Zealanders say this should be a criminal offence. 99% say it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to rape, it is wrong to beat someone senseless, it is wrong to steal etc etc.

But here we have 88% of adult New Zealanders (who voted) saying this should not be a criminal offence. If Parliament does not heed the views of voters on this issue, then we have an awful precedent where Parliament is sits as rulers rather than servants of the people, imposing their private criminal code, rather than society’s.

I’m not an advocate that Parliament in every circumstance should do what public opinion wants. The referendum on the number of firefighters was a classic case. Economic issues can be similiar as the public can vote for cutting taxes and increasing spending without the responsibility of having to balance the budget.

But when it comes to our criminal code, I find it hard to offer up a reason why Parliament would insist on criminalising something that not only lacks majority support for being a criminal act, but in fact has massive and sustained opposition.

The public understand this issue. Hell, it has been debated for two to three years. They know exactly what they voted for. The percentage who spoilt their ballot papers was a miniscule 0.3%.

There is a simple solution to all of this. The Borrows/Boscawen amendment/bill. It will in fact provide greater protection to children (as it significantly lowers the level of acceptable force for non-correctional situations) but remove the insulting differentiation between smacking for preventing disruption and for correction.

The interim results are:

1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a referendum not held with a general election.

87.6% voted no and 11.8% vote yes.

A massive victory for common sense.

As a proportion of total enrolled adults, 47% voted no, 46% did not vote and only 7% voted yes.

Detailed results are here.

The three electorates with the lowest no votes are:

1. Wellington Central 62.1%
2. Rongotai 69.6%
3. Auckland Central 70.1%

I think it shows how different opinion is within those enclaves, compared to most of the country. Having said that even WC almost had 2:1 voting no.

The electorates with the highest no votes (all 92.6%) are:

1. Waikato
2. Clutha-Southland
3. Hunua
4. Taranaki – King Country

The number of electorates who in each band for the no vote are:

1. 60% – 65% 1
2. 65% – 70% 1
3. 70% – 75% 1
4. 75% – 80% 3
5. 80% – 85% 13
6. 85% – 90% 22
7. 90% – 95% 29

The turnout range varied from 32.8% in Tamaki Makaurau to 65.1% in Bay of Plenty.

John Roughan’s column on the smacking referendum is one I have to respond to:

There is something very creepy about this smacking referendum now arriving in the mail. What exactly do the citizens behind this initiative, men like Bob McCoskrie, mean by “good parental correction”?

Well for me it is being able to legally give your child a light smack on the hand or behind if they misbehave. Something probably 90% of parents have done – s0 how is that creepy?

Their publicity pretends they mean nothing more than the smack that an anxious or annoyed parent might use to stop or prevent dangerous or offensive behaviour. But that can’t be all they want because the law now expressly permits the use of parental force for exactly those purposes.

To prevent disruptive behaviour yes, but not to correct it. And that distinction is silly personally.

To cite one example. If you have told your child not to touch something, then it is legal to give them a smack on the hand if you are quick enough to do it as they try to touch it. That is preventing disruptive behaviour.

But if they have been fast enough to do it, it is illegal to them smack them on the hand a few second later as correction.

Delayed, systematic parental correction is the old-fashioned hiding. It was often called a “good hiding”.

That is what the recent amendment to the Crimes Act has criminalised. That, I suspect, is the “good parental correction” we are being asked to endorse in this referendum.

This is such a red herring. Almost everyone I know who does not like the current law, says they think the Borrows amendment would be a good outcome, rather than go back to the old law. The Borrows amendment would define “reasonable force” massively below a “good hiding”. It would exclude any use of an implement, anything that causes bruising, in fact anything where the effect is beyond trifling and transitory. And it would allow it for correctional purposes, as well as the other stuff such as preventing disruption etc.

Here is what many people do not know. The current law does not define what is reasonable for the purposes of preventing disruption. It does not rule out a whack in the head. If your child is screaming abuse at you, you could punch them to the ground and potentially claim that was reasonable force to prevent or stop the disruption. You could hit them with an implement and argue reasonable force.

You see the Bradford law did not change the definition of reasonable force from the old law – despite all the horror stories told. All it did was say you can no longer use reasonable force for correction, but can for preventing disruptive behaviour etc.

The Borrows amendment would provide far greater safeguard, as it would set the definition of reasonable force as low as possible and apply it to all situations.

Those who initiated the referendum know what the new law says. They know it permits reasonable force for all the preventive situations they are fond of citing.

They pretend it does not because they could not attract majority support for the restoration of the right to flog children. Don’t be deceived by them. Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Absolutely.

I think it is sad when invents motives for those you disagree with, rather than rationally debate the issue.

My challenge to John R would be to look closely at the Borrows amendment and then explain how this would be inferior to the current law.

For those in or near Epsom,Rodney Hide is having a public forum at 5.30 pm on Friday 24 July. The guest speaker is Bob McCoskrie on why you should vote No in the referendum.

It is at the Mecca Cafe, corner of Nuffield Street and Remuera Road, Newmarket. A cash bar will operate.

We all had fun using the referendum question generator to create parodies.

Now what people may not be aware is the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre filed a takedown notice against the site allowing you to create a parody, as Orange Man is their intellectual property.

New Zealand doesn’t have a specific exemption for parody and satire, so if they had proceeded, the site could have been forced to close.

Most people would agree the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre should of course be able to take action if a person is using Orange Man to impersonate the Commission Enrolment Centre , or make people think it is a real notice on behalf of the electoral agencies. But most people can work out that a question such as “Should gingas be exterminated by 2011″ is not a real referendum.

Thankfully a compromise has been reached, where in return for explicit reference of the crown copyright, I understand the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre has withdrawn its objections (which is good of them).

It does highlight though the need for good intellectual property law that both rewards the owner of intellectual property, but also protects fair use and free speech by allowing satire and parody.

Hat Tip: No Right Turn

A site has been established allowing people to design their own referenda questions. The intent is to mock the upcoming referenda – they overlook the minor fact of course over 300,000 signed a petition to trigger the upcoming referenda – something managed only four times in a dozen years, despite scores of attempts.

Anyway here are my questions:

Or should we use the term culled?

Hopefully everyone agrees on that one.

The accent does it for me everytime!

Leftie Brian Rudman does not seem too happy with Labour on the Auckland Council:

Every time I hear someone advocating a referendum I cringe. Surely the $9 million anti-smacking charade is evidence enough that asking the great unwashed to say yes or no to a complex, many-faceted conundrum is a dumb way to go.

In recent weeks we’ve had Labour leader Phil Goff demanding a referendum on the Auckland Super City, and now Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford, is introducing legislation requiring a referendum before any publicly owned community assets are sold. But, oddly, only when Auckland assets are at risk.

Yes Labour should have the courage of their convictions and try and implement that policy for all of New Zealand. They would have an uprising from local bodies telling them to naff off.

“Aucklanders are worried,” explains Mr Twyford, “that assets such as water, transport and many others, which ratepayers have built up over generations, are now under threat from the Government’s changes to Auckland governance.”

Perhaps I’ve been snoozing of late, but the only Aucklanders I’m aware of who worry themselves to sleep about such things are professionals hand-wringers like intrepid water rights campaigner Penny Bright and a few old-style lefties who keep Roger Douglas voodoo dolls on their mantelpieces to remind them of the bad old days.

Indeed. But let us follow Labour’s logic here. They say a decision to sell an asset is so monumental there must be a public referendum on that. Well if we accept that logic, then you should also demand that the purchase of any major asset be illegal unless the public get to vote on it through a referendum. It is illogical to require public consent only for sales, and not for purchases.

I’d almost be tempted to vote for a bill that required consent both ways. The public I am sure would shoot down some of the more daft spending proposals by Council. I suspect Mr Twyford is less keen though on letting the public have a say in purchase or construction of assets.

Referendums are expensive, and easily manipulated. In his Super City poll, what question is Mr Goff proposing? How do you decide such crucial details as the powers of the local boards by referendum? The issue of asset sales is slightly more complicated than a simple yes or no.

Back in 2007, I saw nothing wrong with selling Auckland City’s 12.75 per cent of airport shares, as long as the cash was spent on new infrastructure, something like the restoration of the St James Theatre, or repairs to the Aotea underground carpark. But I backed full public ownership of the port because I saw that as a way of ensuring future waterfront developments would be done for the good of all Aucklanders.

It’s impossible to reflect these kinds of nuances in a referendum. What we need to concentrate on is creating a truly democratic, ward-based model of governance, in which every Aucklander feels represented. That way the perception that referendums were a good thing would fade away.

The referendum bill is basically scare mongering. Labour are deeply disappointed that the Government isn’t selling lots of assets (as am I but for different reasons), so they are trying to make people think it is just around the corner.

NZPA reports:

The Government will consider adopting a Green MP’s bill to prevent confusing and ambiguous referendum questions, Prime Minister John Key said today. …

Today Green MP Sue Bradford said she was hoping her bill to prevent confusing questions would be drawn out of the next ballot.

The Citizens Initiated Referenda (Wording of Question) Amendment Bill required the Clerk of the House to allow only referendum questions which were “not ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading”.

Where a question was not allowed a person would be able to re-write it until it met the criteria.

Firstly I am suspicious about all this sudden concern in the wording of referenda questions. There have been far more ambigious questions in the past. I suspect this is politicians finding reasons in advance to ignore the result of the referendum – because they know the public do not like the new law.

But putting aside the suspicious rationale, it is worth considering the merits of Bradford’s bill. On the face of it, it would make referenda more useful and hopefully harder to ignore.

But it does give huge powers to the Clerk of the House. Now the Clerk is not the sort of person who would abuse such powers but Bradford’s bill is asking her to make subjective judgements, not objective judgements.  It is very subjective as to what is leading or misleading.  Any decisions made by the Clerk could lead to political attacks on that office – and that would be regrettable.

Unlike John Key and Phil Goff, I will not be abstaining. I will be voting No. There are several reasons I will be doing so.

1. First of all, I have consistently supported the Borrows amendment as a highly sensible compromise. I do not support a return to the old law, and if it was a choice between the old law and the current law, I would stick with the current law. But the Borrows amendment explicitly excludes force as being reasonable if “it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used”.
2. I also support the Borrows amendment as it actually gives more protection to children in non-correctional situations. For example parents under Bradford’s law can use an undefined level of reasonable force in situations to prevent disruptive behaviour. Yes we have a law that says you can not smack for correctional purposes but can use an undefined level of reasonable force to prevent a child from continuing in disruptive behaviour. Do you want to argue the difference with the Police?
3. I don’t agree that the law is working well. It depends how you define well. If you look at criminal convictions only, I agree there have not been any convictions that are unreasonable. But I don’t think that is the only measure. I never expected scores of parents would be sent to jail for smacking their kids, just as I never expected scores of people jailed for breaching the Electoral Finance Act. That doesn’t mean it is good law though. The current law is confusing, parents do not understand it, and many absolutely fine parents have had to go through unnecessary Police or CYFS investigations.
4. I have a belief that the state should not intervene in how parents raise their children, unless there is clear harm to the children. Parenting is an exceptionally challenging and complex duty, and most parents excel at it without the state telling them how to correct their children’s behaviour. The tragedy is the the state often fails miserably at intervening with horrendous cases of child abuse, yet does intervene when a parent lightly smacks their child. A light smack is not child abuse. It is not assault. Good God it was only 20 years ago that most schools had corporal punishment.
5. Supporting the Borrows amendment is not the same as supporting smacking as a preferred correctional device. It is about not having the law declare parents criminals if they do a light smack for correctional purposes.
6. The wording of the referendum, while not perfect, is more than clear enough. the current law makes any form of correctional smacking a criminal offence – whether part of good, bad or neutral parenting. If you think smacking is automatically bad parenting then vote yes as Sue Bradford will do. If you think that there are situations where a parent should be able to lightly smack for correctional purposes without breaking the law then vote no.

Finally if you are unhappy with the $9 million cost of the referendum, remember that the former Labour Government refused to schedule it at the time of the general election, which would have saved millions.

If the No Vote clearly wins, and there is a significant turnout (say over 50%), then John Key and Phil Goff should support the Borrows amendment (now a private members bill by John Boscawen) as a sensible compromise.

Labour still has no policy on what it wants for Auckland. Despite setting up the Royal Commission, they are now al over the place in terms of any coherent vision for the future.

Can anyone tell me their position on Maori seats?

Can anyone tell me their position on local Councils vs community boards?  They initially said they did not support local Councils as they were too large, but then complained when the Government listened and got rid of them.

Can anyone tell me whether or not they supported the unchanged recommendations of the Royal Commission?

No you can’t, as they have no policy apart from wanting no at large seats, as that will make it easier for them to gain power over the city.

But now in a fit of stupidity, Goff is calling for a referendum on the changes. Before I detail how unworkable this is, let’s hear what the Royal Commission itself said:

31.4 Nor does the Commission consider that a reorganisation proposal would be an appropriate mechanism for implementing the proposed reforms, despite the superficial attraction of using an existing statutory mechanism.1 The reorganisation process requires the review of any reorganisation proposal by the Local Government Commission, followed by consultation with stakeholders, the notification of a draft proposal, and public submissions. It also requires a poll of electors which, by simple majority, determines whether or not the proposal will proceed. Plainly, the complex and wide-ranging recommendations in this Report are not suited to this process;

So the Royal Commission itself said a referendum is only superficially attractive and is plainly unsuited to complex and wide-ranging recommendations.

The Royal Commission was of course right on this point. Referendums are suitable for simple singular propositions, such as changing the term of Parliament from three to four years.

The reform proposals have dozens of elements to them – one Council, an executive Mayor, local boards, composition of Council, powers of Council, powers of Board, ward boundaries, etc etc etc. What would people be voting on?

And is Goff really saying that he wants it to be a choice between doing nothing and the Government’s proposals? That there should be a poll, and if it fails then the status quo endures and all the work of the Royal Commission is wasted? Because a referendum is not something that allows you to modify a proposal, like a select committee process. It is a stop or go process.You don’t like the bathwater and indeed the baby goes out the window also.

Also consider the further practicalities of a referendum? What do you do if voters in six Councils vote yes, and one Council votes no? Do you then have a new Auckland Council with a big hole in the middle of it? Do you give veto power to the voters of the smallest Council that represents around 2% of the Region?

And let us remember the hypocrisy. Goff attacks the Government for changing some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet himself now demands the Government ignore one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission – that the reform is far too complex for a referendum.