The Limits of the Pragmatic

Statesman or Politician

Dear Prime Minister

Madeleine at MandM has written you and the National Party caucus an open letter today on the issue of the anti-smacking legislation. It is an excellent letter, and we urge you to consider it carefully.

To her voice, we would like to add our own. You have evinced many attributes since becoming Prime Minister which have won the respect, if not admiration of the majority of New Zealanders. Not the least has been your determination to "keep your word" with the citizens of this country.

During the election you made certain promises and gave particular undertakings. To your credit you have shown yourself to be one who considers himself to be bound by his word. This is not something which we see very often in public life, particularly amongst politicians. We cannot thank you enough for this. It reflects the qualities and attributes of what it means to be a true statesman--for it respects and honours the Realm itself, the very essence of what it means to be a nation.

Let it be said that we would far rather have you as a statesman than as a "popular and competent Prime Minister", as your predecessor liked to style herself. The latter can lead to actions deleterious and destructive to the Realm, as indeed we saw come to pass. We increasingly sensed in her particular case that it was all about "Me, myself, and I-and the nation be damned."

So, we understand why you have been firm over the anti-smacking law. You promised to the people that you would support a change of the law if ordinary and responsible New Zealand parents were being indicted by its application. But if not, you would leave it alone. You are continuing to hold this view because you want to maintain your word with the people of this country.

But now you face a greater test over your commitment to being a statesman rather than a politician. For we would urge you to consider this: there is no worth or merit in keeping your word with the electorate when the undertakings you gave were wrong in the first place. For the reality is that if you persist in this course you weaken the state and undermine the Realm.

Despite the confusion and equivocal wording of Section 59 of the Crimes Act (a sufficient reason in itself for amending the law) a reasonable person is entitled to conclude on good grounds that the law of our land makes smacking a child for the purposes of correction a criminal act. If you attempt to deflect or neutralise this by promulgating policies which direct the police and state agencies to administer the law as if it did not say what it actually says, the Realm is damaged and weakened. In other words, if as government you direct the agencies of state to interpret the law so as to turn a "blind eye" to smacking for purposes of correction and discipline, despite what the law actually says, you are suspending the rule of law.

Yes, we are aware that the action would be pragmatic. It would "get the result" you have always said you wanted. For a time. But consider at what cost. We would learn from this that the government believes the application of the law should be a matter of police and state agency discretion; that it is a legitimate role for the Executive intentionally to misinterpret and misdirect the law; and that the law is an egregious "wax nose" to be twisted at will with the change of political winds. Your stated position regrettably undermines the respect for the rule of law and of Parliament itself. It, therefore, is a position inimical to the Realm itself.

Mr Key, you have already reneged on promises you have to the people at the last election. Because of the present winter of economic and fiscal straits, you cancelled the tax cuts promised the people. You explained that exigencies and circumstances had changed. You met the situation head on and took the decision you believed to be in the best interests of the Realm. We may disagree, but we respect your stand and the principled way the decision was taken.

This is even more serious. Your promise was wrong from the start. It was disrespectful to the law, to Parliament, to the Realm. You were wrong. You made a mistake--albeit a well-meaning one. There is absolutely no merit in continuing with this. A true statesman would acknowledge the error and would change the law to say exactly what you wish it would say--you and the vast majority of citizens in this country.

We call on you, Mr Key, to continue as you have begun. We urge you in the matter of Section 59 to be first and foremost a statesman of the Realm, not a politician. Show your respect for the law by changing it, properly and formally. Egregious attempts to massage or "frame" the law for the agencies of state would be something a politician, not a statesman would do.