Referendums little more than political protests
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post
Related Links
Relevant offers
Politics
OPINION: It is no wonder MPs are seizing on Sue Bradford's bid to rewrite the law around referendum questions like drowning men grasping a straw.
If there is one thing politicians fear, it is finding themselves on the wrong side of public opinion in a conscience debate.
There was a time when Bellamy's running out of booze might have run a close second, of course, but those days are gone; you are more likely to find MPs in the gym these days than the bar.
Sue Bradford's private member's bill seeking to do away with "ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading" referendum questions might look as if it is reopening the smacking can of worms - but it is proving instead to be Parliament's escape clause. It suits everyone to turn the debate into one over the validity of the question, than over the substance of the referendum itself.
Prime Minister John Key has no interest in reviving the smacking debate after forging a compromise two years ago that, while digging Labour out of a hole, also dug National out of a smaller one.
Although it might have suited National to play short-term politics on the smacking issue, it saw a political headache down the track if its stance had forced it to head into the election campaign aligned with groups from the Christian Right demanding the restoration of the right of parents to hit their children. That would have turned it from a debate over smacking into a debate over children being beaten with jug cords and wooden spoons - one that would have risked alienating women voters.
But Mr Key also has skin in claiming the compromise he presented to former prime minister Helen Clark as a success - which, on the evidence to date, it has been. The heat appears to have largely gone out of the debate.
Which is why Labour leader Phil Goff has even less reason than Mr Key to revive it; the smacking issue signalled the turning point in Labour's fortunes.
Ms Bradford's bill would weaken the ability of petitioners to decide how a referendum should be worded; it does so by giving Parliament's clerk the authority to rule out leading or misleading questions - in effect, delivering huge power to a non-elected official. They would be required to make subjective, rather than simply objective, judgments about how referendums should be worded.
If a referendum was binding on the government, Ms Bradford might have a point. But the history of referendums to date, and the propensity of governments to ignore them, suggests their only real power lies in making a political protest.
Elections are the usual outlet for voicing political protest, but not always; take the smacking issue, where all major parties were in agreement.
The question in the latest referendum - "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" - may be loaded, but that is no doubt what the 300,000 people who signed the petition forcing a referendum intended. It is not so much a "yes" or "no" question as a pointed protest.
Likewise the first citizens-intiated referendum in 1995, which urged the government to keep firefighter numbers at levels in existence before a cost-cutting exercise that would have reduced them by nearly 500 jobs. On the face of it, a straightforward question - but, in reality, arguments in favour of reform to modernise the service never got a run.
Turnout was low, at just 27 per cent of registered voters, but the vote was overwhelmingly in support of the firefighters. No surprise there. The outcome was all but predetermined. Asking people to vote yes to fewer police, firefighters or nurses is liking asking turkeys to vote for an early Christmas.
Fire Service bosses pressed ahead with reform regardless. But in public relations terms, the referendum was a gift to firefighters. It effectively delivered them a $10 million advertising platform, and the groundswell of goodwill it engendered has stuck to this day; subsequent attempts in 1998 to restructure the Fire Service faced massive opposition and contributed to the last National govenment's decline in popularity.
There was no ambiguity either in the 1999 referendum seeking to reduce the number of MPs to 99; despite that, its overwhelming "yes" vote - 81.5 per cent to 18.5 per cent opposed - has been determinedly ignored.
The Christmas turkey scenario strikes again, this time among the MPs who would have to vote to reduce their number to put the referendum's finding into effect.
But the groundswell of anger that petition promotor Margaret Robertson tapped into is not forgotten; the minor parties, who were largely the subject of the public's wrath after the collapse of the NZ First-National coalition and various list MP defections, have been careful to avoid "tail wagging the dog" accusations since.
The Norm Withers petition of the same year could be said to have suffered a similar fate; in its immediate aftermath, the then corrections minister, Matt Robson, rubbished the 91.8 per cent "yes" vote for "a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences". Mr Robson even took it upon himself to head round to Mr Withers' place to convince him of his wrong-headedness.
Mr Robson was right to an extent. The question itself was a nonsense. Bundling up victim compensation alongside tougher sentences and a call to put prisoners back in chain gangs was always going to be impossible to decipher. Which of the 91 per cent of voters who ticked "yes" were voting for better victim compensation, and which were voting for hard labour?
But the Labour government copped the backlash all the same for Mr Robson's determination to set out to prove the nonsense. It may have stopped short of chain gangs in its nine years in office but its sensitivity to being labelled soft on crime saw sentences for the worst offences significantly lengthened.
What of the latest referendum? There is criticism of the cost, at about $10m. There will be even more criticism heaped on its proponents if turnout is low. But even that will be evidence of which way public sentiment is falling.
If turnout is low, it will prove that the public has moved on.
The miracle, meanwhile, is that the referendum even happened. They are notoriously difficult to trigger. If 300,000 people sign a petition stating that they want their day in court, who are politicians to stop them?
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Well said Pete.
The real question is why are these not binding. If there is more than say 70% voter turnout to a referendum why are the politicians not BOUND to follow the will of the people. I haved no interest in this particular one nor any others till I feel the word of the people is respected by those who are put into power by US THE VOTERS.
A waste of 9 million $$$ if you ask me.
there has been proof around the world that this law does not work and for our govenrment or so called government to put it through anyway does not protect the people (children) it was ment to protect in the first place. It just puts the power in to the polices hands to prosecute every day parents for disciplining their child.
This matter can easily be resolved.
The majority don't want a gentle smack to be a criminal offence. It's no use arguing that it may or may not be, people need it stated clearly. So state it clearly, and everyone can move on.
Except Bradford.
Would everybody please stop referring to Christians as pro-smacking.
True Christians do not use the rod and raise good children through Christs wisdom. Spare the rod and spoil the child is anti-Christian. Jesus would never strike anyone let alone one of God's children.
Christians do NOT strike children. Bryan P Lewis
Surely 'referenda'
I read the old law and the new law and - honestly - can't see what the fuss is about. I suspect the 80+% who supposedly disapprove of the mis-named "anti-smacking" law have never read either version or made any effort to follow the rationale that convinced all parties but one to vote for the change.
This referendum question is like most of its predecessors: a disgraceful exhibition of public ignorance by those who backed it. The only exception may have been the first referendum question on fire fighters' pay.
In significant measure, the frenzy against the law change was whipped up by Fairfax and APN media who saw political advantage in knee-capping Labour and the Greens on the anit-smacking issue. Tracy Watkins' line above is typical.....pandering to ignorance and prejudice.
These referenda outcomes have rightfully been ignored. The public has repeatedly proved it's an ass....and an ignorant one at that.
It's a shame voters can't be held to account in the way our MPs can be.
Get over yourselves. There is a right and a wrong way to do democracy.
In most states in the US which allow citizen referendums, there is a requirement that the question put to voters have clear and unambiguous wording so that the legal ramifications (yes, these actions are legally binding) are not subject to costly and unproductive court battles after the fact. The confederacy of dunces who wrote the referendum petition either were too stupid to understand that concept, or they were purposefully and cynically careful in their wording so as to make it appeal to a wide range of voters who may not want to be bothered by the implications.
Stop and think about it for a moment. "Good parental correction." Bollocks. Who determines what is good? The state? The cops? The courts? And how far do we extend the penumbra of parentage? Is it the biological parents, or do we say step-parents too? Whanau? Nanas, aunties, cousins, older siblings, even teachers and coaches acting in loco parentis? And what is meant by correction? Keeping a toddler from running into a busy road, or answering a 12-year-old's demand for another hour with the Playstation when it's already past their bedtime?
I hope Parliament gets this right and we never have to see another idiotic waste of time and money like this misguided petition again.
Tracy What a load of media activist Lobbying. Key has been offered the evidence to show what a dismal failure the law is and has STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT IT! There is only one minor news article from Ashburton where the media is not making their bias and absolute disconnect with the vast majority of the people obvious. Such Media are not a reporting organisation they are a political organisation of their own. Colin is E-spining on one side you on the other. You are such un-professional activists you ought to be ashamed. The attempt to transform the debate into one about referendums is a JOKE. As is this report. This is about JUSTICE, DEMOCRACY, Common sense, and a Representative house of Representatives. Not the house of misrepresentatives we saw 2 years ago. when 100 representing a minority in New Zealand of less than 0.4 million people dominated 3.6 million over 8 times as many people
2 odd years ago Helen and Sue and team Raped New Zealand’s Democracy in a manner Never yet seen. If you support that you are sick!
If Key has committed to Defy and Disobey the people if there is a clear answer in the upcoming referendum he is an illegitimate Prime Minister who is contemptuous of Democracy and should be overthrown. 82% +-2% have continuously been angered by the Rape of Democracy received from Sue and crew and have not changed that view with the law passing. That CYFS are not applying the law and pushing for charges before the referendum is flaming obvious and you must be a naive person to not see that was what was going to happen. They have the tool they want to use it but can wait if it means they can keep it. Naïve as those who cant understand which way to vote like Phil the lame Goff. Yes if you support Sues no responsibility for Children law. And No if you want to beat your kids to death as Sue would like to describe the smacking law.. The Money and the question are being criticised, some say because Key has already decided he will not respond to it, it is stupid to have the referendum.. None of these are reasons not to allow democracy. I personally will pledge $1000 if the Electoral commission will receive it to see that democracy haters that fear the truth of the minority of their views being exposed do not have their way in shutting the mouths of the VAST MAJORITY. If you want request my contact here to verify that. I encourage others also to make such pledges if the likes of you are going to continue Whining about democracy and support Shutting up the majority of common sense people who seek truth and not cover ups. $5 in your voting paper envelope with a note to use it to cover the cost of democracy would be a good message. Because I want even your type Tracey to enjoy democracy.
You ought to be ashamed of your Brazen Activism Tracy. you and Michael Cummins Colin E-Spinner.
Get Professional or join the political movement you support.
Mother in plea for return of photos
Neighbour cuts sewer pipe leaving family in the lurch
Girl's death a homicide investigation
Shot man used hand to ward off bullet
Kapiti road plan greeted with dismay
Clark returns to scene of guide's death
Never-again vow after rural schools botch-up
Truckie fears being fried in pole snap
Avatar - A breathtaking glimpse into the future
Dead girl seemed 'always happy'
First Avatar trailer hits the net
'National won't raise GST' - Key in 2008
Harawira's member's bill mistake
Police advertise for public help
Wellington news quiz 10 February 2010
Plan for bigger Aratere probed
Romantic hideaway in Queen Charlotte Sound
Letter: Time to do the clearing up
Q&A: Chanel Lutton - St Mary's College sports captain
Basic climate change science 'sound' despite IPCC errors
Goff has a bob each way on Tiptoe Tuesday
Winds put paid to swimmer's dream
Glenn #* The reason these referendums are not binding is because they are meaningless. They give govt no indication of what they actually want. If the govt was bound by this referendum, what should they do if the vote goes yes, or if the vote goes no?