The S-Files

John Armstrong Makes Sure the Facts Get in the Way of Clark's Good Story

S-Award given to John Armstrong, Herald Columnist

Contra Celsum is pleased to nominate John Armstrong, Herald Columnist for an S-Award in acknowledgment of his skillful dissection of a Prime Ministerial utterance, exposing the embedded lies.

Citation:

The Prime Minister, Helen Clark has pronounced that there will not be enough time to include the citizens' initiated referendum on the issue of smacking, parental discipline and family violence in the forthcoming general election. The Herald headline gilded the Prime Ministerial lily by telling us that “time had run out” for the petition. What a porky!

John Armstrong has long been a fan, if not a devotee, of Helen Clark and her increasingly dysfunctional government. For over five years, he has used his column in the NZ Herald to act as a (presumably) self-appointed Clark acolyte, sounding board, cheer leader, complimenter extraordinary, mentor, and coach. Over many years, the closest he has got to being critical is to offer suggestions about what she ought to do to maintain her hold over the electorate. A very, very friendly critic indeed.

But a litany of negative opinion polls can change one's perception, if not one's “positioning” to use the modern PR jargon.

In today's column, Armstrong analyses Clark's assertion that there is simply not enough time to include the citizens' referendum on the issue of child discipline with the general election poll later this year. Armstrong is as detached and cold as a mortuary slab as his scalpel-like reasoning slices away the flesh to expose the bare bones of the lie beneath.

Armstrong asks us to assess Clark's assertion that there will not be enough time to get organised to include the questions sought by the petitioners included in a national ballot paper. He notes:

1. If that were true, snap elections would also be an impossibility. Clearly snap elections are possible. Therefore, Clark is lying. He writes: “In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, the 1984 snap election was called by Sir Robert Muldoon just four weeks before polling day. Somehow, electoral officials coped.” Mmmm—we have about another four months to go to the general election. Could the Prime Minister be merely mistaken or deliberately obfuscating?

2. It must be relatively easy to organise a national referendum as part of a general election, since the law explicitly allows adjustment of the date of a citizens initiated referendum to be adjusted to co-incide with a snap election. He writes, “In fact, the law covering citizens-initiated referendums specifically allows Parliament to shift the date of a referendum to the day of a snap election. That suggests there is sufficient time and it is not a problem.” Could the Prime Minister be blatantly dissembling on this matter?

3. Previous governments have made very quick decisions on the inclusion of citizens' referenda on national ballot papers. Armstrong writes: “In 1999, the-then National Government took only a week to determine Norm Withers' petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day.” Maybe the Prime Minister is saying—“yes, ordinarily, a government could be expected to act with integrity and alacrity on citizens' referenda, but but we are talking about the government which I lead and we have demonstrated repeatedly that we lack both integrity and alacrity, particularly when we are confronted with something with which we profoundly detest.”

4. There is still plenty of time left. Ballot papers cannot be printed until just three weeks before election day. “If Labour was as quick, there would still be the best part of two months to organise referendum arrangements. Given ballot papers for the general election cannot be printed until nominations close - around three weeks before election day - it is again hard to see what the problem would be.” Maybe the Prime Minister is being “parsimonious with the truth”.

There is a standing tradition or convention in New Zealand that wherever it can possibly be done, citizens initiated referenda should be included as part of a general election. It is not the cost-saving that is the most important factor (although that is not inconsiderable) but that voter turnout for such referenda are likely to be much much higher as part of a general election.

Thus, a far more complete picture of what citizens really think on an issue will come forth—which helps sustain the whole integrity of citizens' referenda. It would be harder for Parliament to disregard or ignore—if indeed there is strong national sentiment, one way or the other. By trying to prevent the anti-Bradford Bill petition being included in the general election ballot, Clark is showing just how anti-democratic and elitist she truly is.

At heart, Clark despises the people when they dare to have a view contrary to her own. If she truly believed in the value and integrity of citizens' initiated referenda, she should be moving heaven and earth to get it included. If Clark were a Prime Minister worthy of the position, name, and title she would willingly subject herself to the letter and intent of the law. It is deeply regrettable that Clark no longer regards herself as a servant of the people, but their Lord.

If Clark succeeds in preventing the referendum being held on election day, let us then make that one of the great central issues of the election. We suggest that if any credible opposition parties undertook to reconsider the legislation in Parliament, in the light of Clark's apparent bold-faced lying and intransigence, and to take into account the concerns of the petitioners, its electoral support would be considerably increased.

Meanwhile, we salute John Armstrong for his column on the issue.

John Armstrong: S-Award, Class I for actions in the course of duty that on this rare occasion were Smart, Sound, and Salutary.