Brave or Foolish?
Many of my economically dry acquaintances have always been suspicious of John Key. They like the fact that he got rid of Labour, but they doubt his commitment to doing what is right over what is popular. One of them in particular would often remonstrate with me “Tell me one thing he had ever done that was unpopular or brave”.
Well this week they got their example, although it may not have been the example they wanted. It wasn’t a decision to sell some SOEs or slash the top tax rate. It was the shooting down of John Boscawen’s private members bill to amend the anti-smacking law, the day after the Chief Electoral Officer reported back that almost 1.5 million New Zealanders voted against the proposition that a smack for correctional purposes for be a criminal offence. The no voters outnumbered the yes voters almost 8:1.
The Boscawen bill did exactly what the no voters appeared to be calling for. The current law explicitly bans correctional smacking (but allows smacking for some other purposes such as preventing disruption) and the Boscawen bill would allow correctional smacking.
Even more strangely, the Boscawen bill is based on the so called Borrows amendment by National MP Chester Borrows. And in 2007, before his compromise deal with Helen Clark, Key said
“the way you send a message is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. My colleague, Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, has put forward an amendment to Sue Bradford's Bill that would do this. In my view, this is the correct response, and the one Parliament should adopt."
The Prime Minister had said he would only support a law change if the law was not working, and he cites the lack of prosecutions for smacking as proof it is working. Opponents think he is asking the wrong question, and the question should be “Is this a good law”.
Few expected him to agree to the Government changing the law, just because of the referendum result. But when by coincidence the Boscawen Bill was drawn out of the ballot the day after the result, the stakes were heightened. The drawing of the bill could have allowed the PM to say “We don’t think the law is broken, but we are listening to the people and as the Boscawen Bill has been chosen to come up for a vote we will vote for it to go to select committee so people can have their say on if they think the law is working, and whether the Boscawen Bill would improve the law”. Indeed that is what I expected him to do.
But instead, he announced a few hours later that no one in National would support the bill (once upon a time this issue was a conscience vote for National MPs) and sent opponents of the law into a frenzy. Indeed he is being called worse names by some on the right, than even Helen Clark suffered. Traitor seems to be the most common expletive.
So what was John Key thinking? Has he already succumbed to the arrogance of power and doesn’t care what the people think? Or is he stuck between damned if you do and damned if you don’t? Or is he doing one of his risky maneuvers – just as he did in 2007 when he struck the original compromise deal with Helen Clark.
There is a real danger that a significant proportion of the population will just see it as arrogance. It has been over nine months since he was elected Prime Minister and in that time he has had record high polls for both him and his party. This could bring his numbers down to more normal levels.
If voters do become dissatisfied with Key on this issue, an important question is where will they go. I would estimate most of the anger is coming from ACT voters or people who will probably vote now vote ACT. This is not of great concern to National, as it does not shrink the centre-right vote.
Some voters could go back to Labour. These are the traditional Labour voters who got turned off by nanny state, but may not see much of a difference now so will go with a Labour nanny state over a National nanny state.
A possibility also is that some votes could go to Winston Peters in 2011 if he positions himself as the enemy of the nanny state, and vows if re-elected, to force the Government to repeal or amend the anti-smacking law. There is no way Peters could ever support (or be allowed to support) a National-led Government so this could help deliver power to Phil Goff.
There remains the possibility of course that this will not hurt Key, it may even boost him. His original anti-smacking law deal saw him soar up the polls, while Labour kept getting the blame. Of course this time he is more firmly in the gun.
However voters do like strong leadership. John Howard showed in Australia that you can implement unpopular policies, yet still gain support from those who disagree with you on them. If voters think a PM is doing what he believes to be right, they will prefer that to someone who never stands for anything. Howard got elected four times this way.
So was the Prime Minister’s kicking away of the Boscawen Bill a brave move or a foolish move? Only time will tell.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions69
For the last three months John Key (and his alter ego Phil Goff) regularly stated that [a] the question was badly worded and confusing, [b] he wasn't going to bother voting and [c] quite frankly antone voting was wasting their time because whatever the result the law wasn't going to be altered.
Half the electorate believed him (and comrade Goff) and didn't bother wasting their time or the taxpayer's money by sending in the vote.
Rubbish half didn't default.
John key abdicated his responsibility to vote which shows the man's character
Not because the smacking law itself but because of Key's response. Does he have the ability to manage the massive reforms required in NZ. It is true NZ's do like strong leaders like Muldoon, Clark (Hitler) but a strong leader does not mean a good leader. Doing the right thing like supporting Boscawen's bill would would show leadership and be strong.
Now I understand why the cynics have labelled him 'shonky'...
The country wanted more from him in so many areas and so far despite the polls I think his destiny is clear...just another mediocre PM ...out of touch so fast, what a shame.
Why couldn't he just have said " Look, on the basis of the referendum results, I'm going to make changes to this law, but other more pressing matters need to be dealt with now. We'll put in place measures to ensure good parents are not charged, and once we've got the urgent legislation through the house, we can sort this law." BUT, because he had already said he wouldn't do anything, he shot himself and National in both feet.
He is doing what all politicians do ....fumble around the edges trying to cause as few ripples as possible as they could destabilise the government ...and like all leaders he wants to hang on at all costs! What happened to his pre election ideology of listening to and doing what the electorate wants...yeah right !! ...as long as it suits him. Also having voted with Labour for the Bill, he will make himself look a complete hippocrite if he now votes for its demise!The sooner the citizens of NZ realise we live in a SHAM democracy, the better
Helen was more of a commie than a nazi anonymous.
One would imagine that Key wont be losing too much sleep that he has lost your support.
He may not be "losing too much sleep" that he lost one persons support but I think it;s a lot more than he imagines.
2 stuff ups in a short time period - He has lost my support for this change in stance (its what most voters voted for - why spend the money if you were not going to change) and for bringing up the Foreshore and seabed issue again
Perhaps John Key is 'testing the waters', to determine if public opinion really does support abolishing the Bradford Bill; or was the 'vote' just a response to the publicity surrounding the promotion of the Referendum.
Don't be surprised if the Boscowan Bill comes back next year as a conprehensive Bill to re-introduce some discipline into the community, for the benefit of our younger members, who are growing up in homes with no effective moral leadership or roll-models.
Keys main focus right now has to be undoing nine years of economic mismanagement; we are going to have to live a little longer with the social problems from 30 years of the 'easy options' philosophy
When John Key said he wouldn't take notice of the outcome of the referendum vote, he undermined democracy, and those others who would have voted NO, didn't bother. Had they also voted, the NO vote could have been over 90%. He should have remained silent, or said he's wait for the outcome of a democratic vote. Be sure every YES voter did vote because they didn't want to take the chance that John Key would change his mind. This arrogant stance reminds me of Helen whose stance was that Kiwis are too stupid to vote in an election, and also tick a YES or NO vote on the smacking debate.
I reckon he saving this change for the next election- 90% support, not bad if you are in the last week of an election campaign!!!!
Problem is minds get made up at the point the issue is raised and it can be difficult to change minds at the last minute if doing so is seen as just a ddesperate last attempt to shore up your vote. Will watch if Winston uses this and the refernda agenda to reposition himself - I might even vote for him if he improved democracy this way but more likely ACT will be the beneificary.
He has shown himself to be just another 'I know better than you' arrogant politician. Guess what John - you don't.
whether or not Key thinks the law is working is irrelevant. Whether oprnot he supports it is irrelevant. It is how he goes about things in a democratic way that is relevant. At the moment he is acting quite undemocratically and this should not be tolerated - even amongst National MPs.
I am a Mum of young kids - this has sickened me completely. I really believed in John Key (a first for me wrt to politicians), and have been well and truly duped. My friends (also Mums) were outraged enough when he decided to ignore the referendum result, let alone this fiasco.
He has also missed the point that parents aren't afraid of prosecution, they're afraid of the incredible powers that CYFS have, and sticky beaks having nothing better to do than make complaints for no good reason.
I use to class myself as one of those awful swing voters, in the past few years I have moved more centre-right. And, yes, this will definitely affect my vote - probably more Act, because the other way is just not an option.
I'm sick to death of family life being a political game in this country - if you want to get tough on families, sort out those $1000pw beneficiaries, and get rid of that WFF rubbish - it does NOT work for families.
Truly beyond belief! I would think his popularity will plummet and will often be referred to as John Klark. This is the kind of attitude the country voted out at the last election.
Speechless.
Its a bit of a mystery.Presumably he has got his eye on economic matters and doesn't want to be distracted. However he is saying a lot wrong things, about the law working well etc.
I, and many others, think the law is a bad law. We think smacking is a good thing to do. We think not smacking breeds generations of truculent, ill disciplined youth who become a disgrace to their parents. Which is plainly happening now.
The right thing to do, is to listen to the people and change the law so that smacking is no longer a criminal offence. 88% of New Zealanders are unhappy with the anti-smacking law and I would suspect over 90% of them are National voters. John Key would do well to listen to the people.
Key will never recover from this.
The law is not working.
Imagine of the PM directed that police turn a blind eye to shoplifting. There would be zero convictions.. but would this be evidence that the law against theft was working? No, of course not!
This law criminalises a vast number of good NZ parent. The humiliation of being interrogated, charged and convicted depends on the ideological viewpoint of local neighbours, teachers, friends, CYFS and police officers, and this knowledge exists as a constant threat in the minds of parents.
Key has lost my confidence over this issue. He seems prepared to allow bad law to exist to support some kind of political strategy. That makes him morally bankrupt, just like his predecessor.
Mr Key: You were elected to govern democratically, not to rule absolutely. Please resign.
Guess who has avoided the question by using the headline is he brave or foolish?
Since the Bradford- Clark -Key amendment was passed last year seems the answer is he is consistent
I still am wondering what part of NO does the ghost of Helen past not understand .
With a twist of his tongue the man for all seasons, has now become the man for no reasons, sending parents to fear a knock at the door from the jack booted smack police.
I am yet to appreciate just what John Key thinks he will gain by this display of arrogance,
I know what he will lose ..... its called 'Votes'
Clearly he is remaining true to his word. The NO organisers worded the question to get the answer they wanted and thereby forfeited any real mandate to actually change the law. Rather than having a proper referendum with a sensible and neutral question and/or proposal, they chose to emotionalise the issue.
John Key deserves respect for not giving into this populist sentiment and doing what is right.
Well with fifty plus children between us ,we have called a meeting and have agreed that the PM can take them over including their day to day upbringing, as he knows best, how they should be raised and disciplined.We thought that when we voted him in NZ had turned a corner ,little did we know all we got was a brick wall.
I see the wel funded zealots are out in force - targetting every blog site trying to retain the right to beat their kids. Good decision JK, move on and focus on issues that do matter - not a precocupation held by some well financed religious nutters who want us to believe that this law has somehow affected them.
Are you lot honestly lying awake at nght worried about being prosecuted - if so you need therapy, not a law change!!
John Key himself described Bradford's bill as "bad law" (before his sell-out). As have legal experts.
Are you sure SueB is not blackmailing John?
I am surprised how many people comment without apparently reading what David Farrar had to say. I went to a lecture last night where Richard Ekins argued for representative democracy. The main part of his agreement was that politicians acted for the common good. Sadly Key is looking at votes as David has explained. From electoral point of view Key’s stance benefits ACT. If this is a live issue at election time ACT can gain a lot of votes.
Having said that ACT is lobbying hard for a law change now. The reason for this is that ACT is a party of principle while National is guided much more by self interest and pragmatism. It is almost certain that no child will be saved between now and the election by the existing law. However, it is likely that many families will be damaged. This may be due to visits from the police or CTF or it could be from a child coming home from school and informing his or her parent you cannot smack me my teacher told me it is against the law.
What a disappointment Key is, just another self opinionated dictator so his reward from this household of 5 will be to deliver 5 National votes to ACT - no need to dance with the Stars Rodney keep up your pricipled stand and you will be the star next election.
Cannot wait to see the next polls, hopefully the message comes through loud and clear, Labour up 10 and National down 15 would be a good result. Bet that changes Keys attitude.
He's not being arrogant - simply pragmatic - as he always is.
And what's antidemocratic about the elected government ignoring the wishes of only 49% of enrolled voters?
If it's democracy you're worried about, look no further than the impact the ACT party is having on this country. Scary given it won less than 4% of votes at the last election.
And as for referenda - get rid of them. We elect governments to govern. So let them get on with it. Referenda should be consigned to the electoral scrap heap, along with MMP.
Wilson Simpson :
I'm wondering what part of "non-binding" Larry Baldock and Co. (including a good proportion of commentators here) don't understand.
I'm also rather nervous about people whose idea of "democracy" is that a glorified opinion poll should take on the status of holy writ. Perhaps some self-described libertarians and conservatives should try reading Hayeck and Burke instead of just name-checking them.
Craig, I find it just a bit hypocritical when a referendum is ignored and so casually dismissed because of a low turn-out, but a poll of just 1000 is taken VERY seriously by the pollies, and even more so as the election gets closer.
If we could throw out a vote because less than 60% of the people bothered to vote, then nearly every mayor in the country should be sacked.
I appreciate that the PM made his point clear that he would ignore that poll before hand but I think that actually caused the low turnout because "why should we bother" to vote.
Then to arrogantly scuttle the private members bill that would address the REAL issue is reprehensible.
And what is the real issue? That we have BAD law. That the PRIME MINISTER said it was BAD law before he was elected. It is clear that over 80% of the population (based on the glorified poll) would agree.
You obviously believe in treating the opinion of the majority with disdain and arrogance like Key does. You can only do that for so long.
Decent law abiding parents are not being prosecuted precisely because they are obeying th eletter of the law and no longer smacking. They know the risks of CYFs and won't take the chance. But they also know that they should be able to give there child a (reasonable) smack or they could turn out to be sh#@s
The law could be "changed by lunchtime". ACT have my vote next election, John Key is Helen dressed in blue.
I voted National at the last election but they have seriously gone off the boil. Next time Act will be recieving my party vote.
To the person who mentioned "well financed religious nutters", I am an atheist who doesn't smack his kids and I think the current law is awful. The real issue is not the merits of smacking, it is about whether parents decide or politicians decide. That's what people are angry about.
What people are missing here is the way that John Key benefits politically from this. Not only does he save the issue so he can reverse his position in an election year where it benefits him more (as someone already mentioned), he also keeps the media happy. This media (in common with the left generally) are confused enough to regard this issue a litmus test of human decency and cynical enough to turn on Key and cause him enormous damage by starting to slant every story against the government.
I would characterize Key on this (and other issues) as being neither brave nor foolish. He is in fact being cowardly and clever.
80%+ before the election said No!
80%+ after the election said No!
National intended for Kiwi parents to brake the law, knowing CYFS would beable to come after us.
John Key and all the National MP's have broken the social contract with Kiwi Families.
It was National who foisted this law on us not Helen remember that.
By voting ACT our party vote we can give John Key what he needs!
A Smack on the bum for corrective purposes.
Personally I don't really care what they do with the anti-smacking law. The reality is that it's not going to make any difference either way - it won't change the way I raise my kids and it won't stop the real abusers from bashing their kids. But I do care about the way National has handled this issue so badly. I just can't see a downside for National to supporting the Boscawen bill. Any moron with the most simplistic understanding of politics could tell that supporting changing the law after that referundum could only help John Keys poll ratings. And he certainly doesn't have any kind of idealogical aversion to the bill since he supported the Borrows amendment. So why is he taking this stance? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up, and when things don't add up in politics it usually means we're not being told the complete truth. There has to be more to why Key is saying No and I wish some journalists would push a little harder to find out why that is.
I'm like you, I fail to see any possible gain for Key and National in this. Farrar suggests taking a strong stance, rubbish. It isn't his or his Party view so it can't be a stance. He or the party have to be under some sort of undue influence or pressure. UN, World Bank or IMF? If he came out with a plausible reason I would maybe accept it but he hasn't and can't. As for the pathetic deflection of the issue by getting Brownlee to announce mining as a possibility in conservation areas. Tacky, bloody tacky. Truth will out, it usually does.
For heavens sake, the country has some real financial problems to deal with. If John and the Nat / Act / Maori coalition keep focused on turning the economy around, keeping markets open for our exports, keeping as many people with jobs in jobs, getting our youth (the non workers) involved in useful enterprises, getting those who won't work off the welfare he will do a hell of alot more for the children of this country.
I for one have smacked my 4 children and I'd like to reach out and smack some of the idiots who want the GOVT to drop everything and re-open this issue.
Well done John Key for realising what is important when it comes to running the country NZ Limited, limited resources, limited time, he has chosen to prioritise and get on with it. Pick the policies which need to be changed to create an environment that encourages enterprise, effort, and rewards those of us who get on with it.
For those who want to keep harping on about the smacking legislation do the numbers, a few cases, less than you can count on both hands and both feet with socks off. Domestic violence 80,000 in the same time, unemployed 100,000s plus, importation of P precursor tablets 100,000,000s of pills, Finance companies destroying $1B+ of NZ citizens hard earned wealth.
Go KEY, get on with the big numbers and let the neigh sayers winge on. At the next General Election no one will look at the 6 prosecutions for smacking (a guess at the quantum), but we will all be looking at the Unemployment, the DHBs, the Infrastructure Projects etc etc
There are countless examples of bad law. But why is this one on a pedestal??
Because of mass hysteria drummed up by religious nutters who want to be able to - whack - bam - thump - belt (sorry I mean smack).
Key has gone up in my estimation - thank goodness he will not spend time on this trivia.
Keep up the mass blogging - how much do you guys get per post again?
Religious Hate is more common in NZ than religious nuttas. Last time I checked less than 5% of New Zeland were religious enough to get off their buts an be a part of organised religion.
87% of New Zealand is definitely not beholden to religion!
Spare me days mate! You are obsessed and deluded on that one.
John Keys hands were tied. NZ decided to let the UN do her thinking for her a long time ago, on child rearing and now on climate change. The alternative would be to withdraw from UNCRoC, which no-one want to do because children apparently need rights.
Also it doesn't matter who you vote for. I voted ACT last election, because it was obvious that Key would not keep his word, so I thought ACT would mix it up a bit. I suspect by the next election, we will have signed on to so many ideological campaigns and treaties that words like democracy and freedom will be words for the history books, although if history books are written by the victors, then they probably won't be in there at all. If the next election doesn't get canceled by police state/pandemic, I will probably vote Libertarians, or maybe start an Anarchy party, or maybe anarchy IS the point. Out of the ashes so to speak.
Pay attention to the new-speak. Parents can't use force without being violent, but are the Police violent when they use force?
If force for correction doesn't work on kids, then why is it used on prisoners in the correctional facilities.
Final thought: Don't trust the media to give you your information, talk to your neighbours.
for the free adverts. Meanwhile, MikeNZ, if 'smacking' was such a huge issue for New Zealanders you've got to wonder why ACT didn't do a damn sight better when National and Labour between won the overwhelming majority of the vote.
ACT seems to be falling into the same trap as all unprincipled populists: They confuse the tiny minority who scream loudest with "the voice of the people". And sooner rather than later, the con stops working -- just ask Winston Peters.
Oh, and pardon my cold, hard right-wing heart if I'm totally unmoved by thugs like Jimmy Mason being "criminalised" for punching children in the head. Whatever happened to picking on someone your own size, and who can fight back?
Go Figure...Key offered us a party that in his own words Condemned Helen for walking over the clear will of the people.
We Foolishly Trusted him.
We didn't realise that only Act would act like National.
-Personal responsibility...-
-Representative government
-Non Racist political systems.
-Tough on Law and Order.
Act is actually quite widely supported if you hadn't noticed and at a level more than their vote count.
I know many who would love to support act... But..
It is called strategic voting and not voting for a party that will get no political traction because of its current profile to get one that is tolerable and will exclude the Intolerable.
Well Both Major Parties have become intolerable...
Watch this space...There is a VERY BIG GAPING Hole that Act can fill. and.....Who's to say National won't fall to pieces over this. The Majority of National are Fuming over this. Even on their own members website.
They want more than one term.
They could have it if there was a "New National" formed that actually applied National Principles.
If Act Pulled it 's Supply and confidence agreement and threw its toys Real well over this while inviting/challanging National MPs to revolt., it could be a spectacular lesson in representative democracy.
There is some VERY STRONG public support for such Democratic Revolt.
Act could catapult now into becoming a Major party like it will and has never had a Chance to in Decades.
They Just have to Let Rip all Guns Blazing at the Out rage we are witnessing.
Parliament needs and Immediate Shake Up or it has No Credibility and may as well Not exist.
Hmmm Craig R now lets turn back the tape How many children do you have ?get some then you can attack us parents.
“The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament, says National Party Leader John Key.’The Labour…-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become….”
Surely the 'John Key' we see now is just a clone of the old one. The clone version has has Helun Klark's soul implanted.
There can be no other explanation!
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below