CIVIS is an equal-opportunities political critic. Not that this is the most challenging role, given the line-ups of yahoos and numpties. Last week Civis was appalled by New Zealand First leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters' blatant racism directed at Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan. This week Civis turns first to often bumbling Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, even if he is not the primary focus. Mr Luxon blindsided everyone with last week's off-the-cuff call for an MMP referendum. It was policy on the spur of a talkback moment, a topic far from the top of public concern and one requiring much more thought and debate. Mr Luxon missed the target in several ways. He had also insulted small-business owners, core National supporters, at a Rotorua meeting. He precipitated another leadership crisis as National MPs wondered whether he had become too much of a liability. It was he who, when justifying the need for more National Cabinet ministers, said, “The question is, I keep saying, I don't need some yahoo or numpty from some other party around that table. I can do a lot more to get the centre-right agenda, centre being the operative word, done and out the door, so think about your vote.” Spot the yahoo? Or should that be numpty? Or perhaps the Humpty Dumpty who this week survived a potential great fall? Or has Christopher Luxon displayed remarkable resilience and fortitude, knocking back would-be challengers not once but twice? *** Civis now turns to Act, whose recent foray into graphic design warrants scrutiny. Act has been acting up in a way we witness all the time among politicians and advocacy groups. Phrasing, statistics, or, on this occasion, a graphic, are presented in ways that are straight-out misleading. Civis is tilting his lance forlornly at this issue, knowing the futility of the charge. We will be bombarded with selective use of statements, statistics and graphs until the November election. Act posted misleadingly on Facebook about the gap between new medicines funded in Australia and New Zealand. A graphic shows two stacks of pills: Australia has funded 215 medicines between 2011 and 2025, while New Zealand has funded 86. Yet Australia is depicted with a stack of 10 pills and New Zealand with just two, RNZ reported. As a statistician pointed out, the pill stacks depict a fivefold difference, when the actual difference is 2.5 times. Even assuming no funny business was in play with basic numbers and definitions, there might still be legitimate reasons for differences." Without any research, it might be that multinational drug companies have been more effective in exploiting Australia. New Zealand might use more generics. Who knows? A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of New Zealand's Pharmac model is for another day. An Act press secretary has denied the post was misleading, saying it was a “graphic and not a graph”. Graphics might, on the margins, be defended as allowing for “opinion”. In this case, the bar graph is plain wrong. Sadly, graphic tricks can mislead in several ways, even when graphs are strictly “accurate”. Wrong and deceptive graphics undermine proper political debate, further eroding trust in politicians and politics. We need to demand better from all our political parties and their advertising and advocacy. We are trusting them – as much as we can – with our votes and the running of our government. Let them show they can return that trust with honesty in how they sell themselves to us. civis@odt.co.nz Civis writes the Passing Notes column for the ODT.
