Putting the referendum result in context

It has been said that the overall turnout (54%) in the smacking referendum provides no mandate.

If this were true, no city or regional council has a mandate to govern today and all should resign pending a fresh election, as those results are decided on turnouts of fewer than 50%.

But more significantly, here's something else to keep in mind.

More than 1.4 million people voted 'No' on the referendum.

In the 1999 election that swept Labour's Helen Clark to power, 800,199 people voted Labour.

In the same 1999 election, 629,932 voted National.

In other words, the no vote in the referendum is almost double (75% higher in fact), than the number of voters who gave Helen Clark a mandate to run New Zealand for three years.

It is more than double (130% higher in fact), than the number of people who voted National in 1999.

In fact, it may even be that on the final tally, the 'No' vote actually exceeds the combined votes of both National and Labour at the 1999 election.

Green Party MP and pro-smacking law campaigner Sue Bradford has tried to argue that if you take into account those who didn't vote (46%), and add them to the 11% who voted in favour of her own position, that's a majority of the population who support her and therefore the referendum gives "no mandate" for change.

Taking that logic at face value, if we look at the 1999 election, the number of people who did not vote Labour or did not turn out to vote, clearly outweighs Labour's 800,000 votes.

Bradford is on a loser if she keeps riding down that path.

Ironically, more people voted No in last night's referendum than voted in favour of introducing MMP to our electoral system. Does that mean we should declare MMP null and void using Bradford's logic?

Perhaps, if we did, the Greens would disappear in a puff of (dope) smoke.

Comments

[Shane Ponting]

"pro-smacking law campaigner" - shouldn't it be anti-smacking law campaigner? Or have I yet to wake up properly (could be that).....

[James]

But that's how the law works with a citizen's referendum. You can talk about mandates and blah blah blah. But comparing this referendum to a general election is redundant.

[Ian Wishart]

James, the will of the people cannot be 'defined' by statute or imperial decree from the throne.

It doesn't matter how the Government chooses to codify it, the will of the people expressed via a referendum or otherwise remains their will.

The only question is what is the consequence of failing to heed the will of the people.

In minor cases it may be nothing, in more serious cases it may be a grudge nursed until an appropriate venting moment, and in the most serious cases a Government that fails to heed the will of the people falls.

Many of the same people who voted for Helen Clark in 1999 voted against the smacking law yesterday.

The mandate is just as valid as any other vote.

[James]

Where did I say "defined" or discuss the will of the people. The only person who seems to be bringing up the will of the people is you.

"The only question is what is the consequence of failing to heed the will of the people."

The will of the people sounds all very heroic but I think most people will agree that this is a very peculiar expression of will, especially around the wording of the referendum, and its relationship to the repealing of section 59.

[Ian Wishart]

The will of the people is implicitly dragged into this discussion by your comment rejecting the mandate argument.

I'm curious to know how you reach the view that "most people will agree that this is a very peculiar expression of will", when most people in the referendum vote clearly didn't find it peculiar?

Likewise, the 89% or so 'No' vote is pretty much on par with the opinion polls sampling portions of the entire population, so it can't be argued that the result is non-reflective of the wider public mood.

Do you mean 'most people [in Grey Lynn] will agree etc..."?

[James]

"Do you mean 'most people [in Grey Lynn] will agree etc..."?

You read my mind. You're hilarious. I thought I was reading PJ O'Rourke there for a second.

I admit I phrased that comment incorrectly. What I meant by that comment is that despite that I don't think I'd like to smack my future children, I also don't think that people who do should be punished in the eyes of the law. In other words, I think NO too! But, again (and again, and again), the wording doesn't relate to the proposed law change.

I mean how many people have been charged for giving their child a smack so far under the current law?

Now, when people voted for Helen Clark, they got Helen Clark. When you vote for this law, you get something a little different from what's on the form. The form is a lie, that's the problem, and that's why there's uncertainty. Rather than just blanketing it all as the will of the people, ask yourself how this situation differs, and why we're having this debate in the first place. Uncertainty.

Going back to your, "In minor cases it may be nothing, in more serious cases it may be a grudge nursed until an appropriate venting moment, and in the most serious cases a Government that fails to heed the will of the people falls."

Well, so be it. They get voted out, honestly, is that what you mean? Or something a little more drastic?

[John Boy]

I remember hearing adds on Newstalk ZB which included the words "Helen Clark Prime Minister" over and over. The add also included her using the words "democracy" and "principles". I can't see why the left talk like that then ignore these same principles. I have no time for any branch of politics but that add really got under my skin.
So, James, shove it. It was a stupid change endorsed by stupid people -particularly Bradford who was Clark's dummy but seems too dumb to know it. It has cost lots to question now because of stupid people. What ever we have as a political system its not democracy.

[Anna]

Actually this anti-smacking law is a tad too ridiculous. The government has no right to tell you how to raise your kids, though I do understand their intentions behind it all because not all parents are up to scratch raising their kids.

But if it is abuse it is abuse and therefore should come under the “abuse” laws not some silly little anti-smacking law.

I think parents have a right to smack their kids; it’s the best way to control them. If you yell at a child and that child knows you are just going to yell (only) and that’s all, the kid has the freedom to laugh in your face and usually has the audacity to do so. On the other hand if you bring out the slipper the child soon learns to tow the line.

It’s basically (for the parent) commonsense discipline. Smacks are the “last” option when the parent ‘has’ to discipline. A smack on a child’s backside won’t psychologically screw the kid over. The only thing I recommend is- smacking stops at the age of puberty; from the age of about 8-9 yrs smacking needs to stop. Because at this age the child is coming into their own, thinking for themselves, knowing their own bodies and at this age if you do continue (to smack) the child will get bothered by it. Smacks have to stop around this age. It isn’t right for a parent to come along and physically touch the child in a disciplinary manner, because at this age the child “knows” how to “learn” to hold a grudge.

To discipline from ages 8-9 and upwards is easy, most kids learn freedom around this age and to go out (down to the shops/arcade or whatever with their friends) they need pocket money. So that’s easy if they misbehave you restrict their pocket money.

From about the age of 12, that’s the age you “reason” with the child and this is the age bracket that the parents fascist ways need to smooth out a tad- to bring the child into adulthood (in a healthy manner).

[James]

"Shove it."

Will do. Just let me know what "it" is and I'll be good to go. Waiting patiently for your reply...

In the meantime I feel like I should inform you that John Key, of the National party, is now the Prime Minister. According to your logic, he's not acting very democratically as his expression of suspicion about the question has been the loudest (although according to the latest, it looks as though he's going to do something now...)

One could interpret this referendum result as a confirmation of the law as it stands. Does the question actually ask for a law change?

Finally, coming back to the idea of not the result binding. That's not something that the "sore losers" just came up with. That's the law, and it's a law that everyone should be aware of when they sign the petition and then vote on the form.

[fletch]

As far as the referendum question itself, I think the wording is largely irrelevant. The smacking issue and the petition have been in the news for almost two years - we've had polls, and demonstrations in most of the main centers where thousands turned up to protest the bill. A Kiwi would had to have been living in a hole not to know what he was voting for.

[Tim]

It seems a little odd that you are using such old figures.. could that be because they were the only ones that fitted your argument so conveniently?

The wording of the question was totally ridiculous and did not adequately address section 59. Politicians on both the 'right' and the 'left' agree that it was confusing and poorly worded. I think we can take from the referendum that most people do not think parents should be prosecuted for a light smack. Great. So what does that mean for section 59 again?

What if the question was "Do you think a man who hits his child repeatedly with a metal bar should be prosecuted?". We might have easily got 86% of respondents answering 'yes'. What would that mean for section 59? You guessed it: nothing.

I totally agree with James that the result is meaningless for Section 59. The question was confusing and it was a non-binding referendum (thank goodness).

Was it a waste of time/money? Yes.

Does it provide serious evidence that 'most people' want the changes to section 59 repealed? No.

Should publicity-mongers like Larry Baldock be asked to pay for their own popularity campaigns in the future? Yes.

[Tim]

"But if it is abuse it is abuse and therefore should come under the “abuse” laws not some silly little anti-smacking law."

Case in point. People do not understand this law and therefore are not able to decipher a highly emotive question to reach the 'nugget of legislation' when deciding how to answer the referendum.

[Johnnieboy]

"The wording of the question was totally ridiculous and did not adequately address section 59."

The law renders any force used for correction, including a smack, as criminal assault under s59(2) and under the s2 definition of assault. The referendum question asked if we agreed that a smack for the purposes of correction should be a criminal offence.

Thus the referendum question directly addresses a large problem (among many) that s59 represents to those who raise children, & is not irrelevant.

[robk]

Johnnieboy is right. Smacking is just a part of it - if you 'propel', even gently, your child to the 'naughgty chair' then you are technically assaulting them.

Anne gives some good advice above. I would add we never saw smacking as the 'last resort', however, but a quick means of gaining compliance ONLY when the children point blank refused to do as we commanded using the code word "Now".
"Pick up your toys. Now!" ..."No"... Smack

If the smack didn't work it was then time for long haul tactics, such as withdrawl of privileges (sweets).

Forgetfulness and childishness were not a reason for us to smack.

We have three wonderful grown children; productive, generous and helpful.

I have only contempt for politicians who now claim our discipline was any kind of 'assault' or abuse.

If the current law continues to be an ass then it deserves to be ignored.

[Toffee Cup]

Will Johnnie Boy listen to the overwhemling result, or will he just keep trying to appease both the ardent Left and the screwy Lefist media? I voted for change, hope we get it. Key is doing an okay job other wise, but he may lose my over this! When do we get our democracy back?

[robk]

I still don't think Key believes in the anti-smacking bill, I figure he is probably keeping it just to appease the UN.

[John Dierckx]

"Will Johnnie Boy listen to the overwhemling result, or will he just keep trying to appease both the ardent Left and the screwy Lefist media? I voted for change, hope we get it. Key is doing an okay job other wise, but he may lose my over this! When do we get our democracy back?"

Anything short of setting the record straight and get rid of this criminal offence we did not want in the first place is undemocratic.

Have Key and all those others before him forgotten that they are elected to REPRESENT the people and that it is our tax money that pays their bills and perks? A law was pushed through in 2007 that had no democratic support, Parliament, by allowing this law to pass, already ignored its voters, the people once. And now again? The referendum is to inform out politicians of our opinion, the elections are there to enforce our sentiments upon those we choose to represent us. These boys and girls in the Beehive are getting things mixed up. Parliamentarians are send to parliament every three years as representatives of their voters, they should therefore be adhering to what we want them to do not the other way around. And here we have a John Key, prior to the referendum already telling us that regardless of the outcome he will not change the law. And basically sticking to that position despite the outcomes. Have those politicians forgotten that the overwhelming majority of New Zealand never wanted this law in the first place? No-one wanted a back-office “compromise” deal of John Key and Helen Clark and in any event, NO ONE PERMITTED THESE POLITICIANS TO GO AHEAD AN DO IT ANYWAY. An yet, here we see it being done twice!

TIME TO RETHINK THE BASICS I would say.

Ignoring the referendum results, is like seeing democracy die for the benefit of ELECTED politicians, that have become so power hungry, that they think they have it within their right to ignore those who elected them in the first place. If that is the case, we may as well stop pretending and admit that voting rights are no more than window dressing and keeping up a democratic myth so as to keep the population quiet and unaware that we are actually living under some form of dictatorship.

Read the full comment here:
http://johndierckx.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/smacking-referendum-pragmatism-losing-face-the-myth-of-democracy/

[Anna]

“If that is the case, we may as well stop pretending and admit that voting rights are no more than window dressing and keeping up a democratic myth so as to keep the population quiet and unaware that we are actually living under some form of dictatorship.”

John Dierckx you have hit the nail on the head!

[ZenTiger]

The revised law is badly written, far more confusing than the referendum question, and has the same kind of "loophole" as the old law.

All that is new is that it makes any kind of force for the purpose of discipline illegal.

Why parents are criminals

[Shunda barunda]

The question was not misleading. You would have to be a grade A moron to think it was.
I am starting a new petition, the question will be:

"Should being a moron as part of good political correction be a criminal offence in NZ?"