Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 9:43AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I think one should interpret the question as "do you support the s59 repeal law change?" even if that's not what it actually asks.

I support it, so I would vote yes.

Posted at 9:55AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I'll be making the case in my PAR piece this week for spoiling the ballot. The last time I didn't vote, the outcome was a clown school dropout of a Mayor. (And, yes, I'll be offering a public mea culpa for that too.)

The question is nonsense.

After nine million dollars and change has gone down the tubes, the results are non-binding and Key has signalled that he's not going to change the law regardless of the outcome.

And nothing has changed my opinion that the CIR Act needs to be put out of our misery, now.

Posted at 9:56AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Maybe the lesson should be that we need to modify the CIR law

So that not only do you need a whole bunch of signatures on your stupid referendum but you also need to pony up with the $10 million or so to pay for your stupid question to be put to the public!

Hmm maybe we should start a petition for a referendum on that?

Posted at 9:57AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I disagree with the whole concept of this CIR on several grounds:

- Public policy is holistic. Most parties have a fairly complete program, and there are many to choose from. If people wanted to beat their kids, they could have voted for ACT, Destiny or the Corrupt Samoan Aristocracy Party.

- Being protected from assault is an absolute human right. I don't believe that the electorate is entitled to overturn this.

- It's a leading question designed to drive people into an answer.

I'm going to spoil my paper with some sort of pithy comment. I don't believe one should dignify this exercise with a formal vote.

The CIR law should be repealed. If we need such a law at all, maybe it could be integrated with the parliamentary process. Possibly a petition supported by 5% of electors could entitle an MP who supports the measure to parliamentary time to take a bill to Select Commitee (if not defeated at first/second reading). After that, there could be a referendum vote on whether the bill should be passed. That vote could be taken into account at third reading.

Posted at 9:59AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

And was I the only one who would have been a lot more impressed with Key and Goff if they'd just said it was a political swamp not worth wading into? They'd have been right, and honest.

Posted at 10:02AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

It's a leading question designed to drive people into an answer.

You know what made me happy?

Gordon Campbell actually using the term "begging the question" correctly in his recent column about the referendum. It's an ill wind etc ....

Posted at 10:06AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Paint me ignorant, but what is the point of defacing the ballot?
It doesn't get counted and just adds to the cost of the operation, so why?

Posted at 10:06AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Gordon Campbell actually using the term "begging the question" correctly in his recent column about the referendum. It's an ill wind etc ...

I saw a pale rider on a horse named Binky... :)

Posted at 10:07AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Remember that Helen Clark received a lot of criticism for not including it as part of the electoral ballot in November?

Posted at 10:08AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

For me, what's important is the actual intent behind the referendum. In this case, as Larry Baldock points out on Morning Report, the intention is to reinstate "reasonable force" i.e. restore S59.

To hell with that, I'm voting YES to dilute whatever moral authority these violence-mongers are seeking to obtain.

Does anyone know how much it costs to hold a referenda in conjunction with a general election ? Maybe, in addition to tightening up the wording, the CIR Act should stipulate that they can only coincide with general elections (including a specified cutoff date for the signatures).

Posted at 10:09AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Paint me ignorant, but what is the point of defacing the ballot?
It doesn't get counted and just adds to the cost of the operation, so why?

Andrew: First caveat -- speaking entirely for myself here.

I believe they do get counted (informal/spoiled ballots certainly do in general elections), and while not voting isn't an option, I don't want to dignify a totally nonsensical question with a positive vote either way.

Posted at 10:12AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Remember that Helen Clark received a lot of criticism for not including it as part of the electoral ballot in November?

Yes, and I wasn't buying that it was logistically and financially impossible. I do however perfectly understand the political angle that this was the last thing Clark (or anyone else) wanted that back on the agenda during an election that was going to be enough of a shit fight.

Posted at 10:14AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I agree with Rich's comments about the pointlessness of CIRs and would add that they are very expensive ways of getting predictable answers to meaningless questions, as the history of CIR so far shows. But I cannot for the life of me understand why the question as framed has made it onto the ballot paper. My information is that Baldock chose the wording and the Clerk of the House checked and approved it. The Clerk was required to advertise the proposed wording and take submissions. Did he receive none from supporters of the law? Did somebody who has done Semantics 101 take a look. Why can't the question say: "Do you think that children should not be protected from assault in the same way as adults are, so long as the assailant is one of their parents?"?
As framed, the question is full of undefined assumptions. What is a smack? What is good parental correction? Is it relevant to remark that, as the law stands (and depending on your answer to the two questions above) a smack as part of good parental correction is NOT a criminal offence?
Personally, I think the referendum should say "Do you want liberal chardonnay-drinking socialist namby-pamby liberals who are probably childless and lesbian and hate good honest decent working folk like you to tell you how to bring up your kids?". At least that would be honest.

Posted at 10:14AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

When I heard this question a while back I thought it was a joke, you know, a satire on how the question would be posed if it were framed by wingnuts. I never realised it was official.

The part of the question that i find inappropriate is the "good parental correction ". This, at best, is subjective and in itself can be broken down further.
Good?, what is good? is it the end result of something that is "better" , as our current Govt. advertised itself as? How do we define it in such a way as to be unambiguous enough to be part of a serious political question?.
Parental correction?. This is completely out of kilter for any political line.
how do you define correct? Do we assume that children are "evil" at birth and need to be "corrected"? surely this would go against the grain with the most God fearing of parents?

The question should read "Should assault of a child be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" and leave it to the courts to determine what constitutes assault.

Posted at 10:18AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I'm going to vote "yes" - as I see it if the bastards don't lose we'll never hear the end of them

Posted at 10:19AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

The comments for Talking Points Memo's Top 7 Conservative New Media FAILS So Far this Year include a debate about the acceptability of "Fail" as a noun.

I'm all for it. But the thing that strikes me is that the first time I heard "fail" as a noun was from the mouth of my younger son, long before it was the hip thing for grownups to say. Indeed, he once bellowed "Fail is a noun!" while sitting at his computer. Is this where all language starts these days?

No, not all language.

Just grabbed a nearly 20-year-old Concise Oxford English Dictionary from the shelf:

fail v. & n. -- v. 1. intr. not succeed
...
-- n. a failure in an examination or test. ...

So this is a test of someone's twitter-ability, rather than a test -test - has the meaning changed all that much?

Posted at 10:20AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

But I cannot for the life of me understand why the question as framed has made it onto the ballot paper. My information is that Baldock chose the wording and the Clerk of the House checked and approved it. The Clerk was required to advertise the proposed wording and take submissions. Did he receive none from supporters of the law? Did somebody who has done Semantics 101 take a look.

I believe the Clerk can only object to the question if it doesn't fulfil the guidelines for questions - it has to be answerable by a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It's probably unsurprising that I'm burning to attempt to write guidelines for questions that would prevent both a question like this one, which is heavily loaded, and like the 'let's kick criminals in the nuts' one from a few years back which was actually three separate questions all run together. This is what my brain does with its spare time.

Parental correction?. This is completely out of kilter for any political line.
how do you define correct? Do we assume that children are "evil" at birth and need to be "corrected"?

No no, parental correction. The correcting of parents.

Posted at 10:22AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I seem to remember that Labour were also running the line before the election that there was no point to a referendum until the law change had a chance to be tested... even though it is now obvious to everyone except Larry Baldock and Bob whatshishandle that the question has absolutely nothing to do with the repeal of that section (and Labour knew that at the time one assumes but how could they convince the irate masses)

When the initial howling and chest beating hooha was happening, the referedum question was considered to be about the law change. Now I find myself torn by the hideousness of the whole thing but I guess I'll go with yes

Posted at 10:24AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Two clear problems with the question:

1) It assumes that a smack can be part of good parental correction. Surely that's up for debate.

2) When you read the question it certainly seems as though you're being asked "should good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

That's like asking "should it be illegal to drink water in New Zealand?"

Posted at 10:25AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

And was I the only one who would have been a lot more impressed with Key and Goff if they'd just said it was a political swamp not worth wading into? They'd have been right, and honest

Goff said, in the article Russell linked to:

The so-called anti-smacking law was working as it was intended to.

Key said:

Government would change the smacking law if it was not working . . . "There's only been the one now documented case and I'm satisfied that the law is working.

Both of them have 'waded into the swamp', and come down quite clearly on the side of the current law. You can be impressed with them now.

Posted at 10:25AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

No no, parental correction. The correcting of parents.

My bad, smack me with that rattle why don't you?.
;-)

Posted at 10:25AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I think I'd be vaguely happy with the wording if the word 'good' was taken out of it. Talk about subjectivity overload.

Like others I'll be voting 'yes' as I support the law change and refuse to give any ammunition through inaction to those trying to smack children or change the law to make it easier for them to do so.

Posted at 10:26AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

My information is that Baldock chose the wording and the Clerk of the House checked and approved it. The Clerk was required to advertise the proposed wording and take submissions. Did he receive none from supporters of the law?

And if he did, what was the Clerk supposed to do with them? Perhaps Mr. Edgeler could clarify exactly what the Clerk's role in this is, but I rather doubt it includes making the damn things palatable to your sensibilities or mine. And its a little rich for people like Peter Dunne (who I believe voted for the CIR Act back in '93) getting snitty at the people who've got to make it work.

All the Act itself says about the wording is this:

**10. Criteria**
(1) The wording of the precise question to be put to the voters, as determined under section 11 of this Act by the Clerk of the House of Representatives,—
(a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and
(b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.

Posted at 10:26AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I believe the Clerk can only object to the question if it doesn't fulfil the guidelines for questions - it has to be answerable by a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It's probably unsurprising that I'm burning to attempt to write guidelines for questions that would prevent both a question like this one, which is heavily loaded, and like the 'let's kick criminals in the nuts' one from a few years back which was actually three separate questions all run together.

Only three?

Also, your belief is somewhat mistaken. See the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, in particular:

10 Criteria
(1) The wording of the precise question to be put to the voters, as determined under section 11 of this Act by the Clerk of the House of Representatives,—

(a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and

(b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.

(2) Subject to subsection (1) of this section, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in making a determination under section 11 of this Act,—

(a) Shall take into account—

(i) The proposal submitted under section 6 of this Act; and

(ii) Any comments received under section 7(2)(b) of this Act; and

(iii) The consultation that took place under section 9 of this Act; and

(b) May take into account such other matters as the Clerk of the House of Representatives considers relevant.

Posted at 10:29AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I'm going to vote "yes" - as I see it if the bastards don't lose we'll never hear the end of them

.

Do you really imagine that the "No" vote won't prevail by three or four to one? I think our best hope is to put about the idea that voting "yes" means "yes, I can smack my kids".

Posted at 10:29AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

That reminds me of the warning on Sky Tv
"We advise the use of the parental lock out function"
I always envision kids locking their parents out in the garden and settling in to watch porn.

Posted at 10:31AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

The referendum petition began before the law was passed. Then there was the late Clark-Key compromise, but the people gathering signatures carried on regardless, in the guise of opposing something that had since changed.

So the referendum question could not simply call for a repeal, because the law did not exist at the time the petition started. I am not opposed to the principle of CIRs - who knows when we might need that tool? - but there is a serious problem when people are being asked to sign not only a petition, but a blank cheque.

Posted at 10:31AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Both of them have 'waded into the swamp', and come down quite clearly on the side of the current law. You can be impressed with them now.

Jake: Pass. If they think the law is working why not vote in favour of the status quo? Instead I got a double helping of breakfast waffle -- and I prefer pancakes. :)

Hey, I don't blame them if they'd rather not get into a fight that's frankly not worth the time and effort. But it would be nice if they were honest about it.

Posted at 10:32AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

The last CIR in when, 1999? had not one, but six different questions in one statement/question - which was something to do with capital punishment from memory - all I really remember were the six questions - which one was I voting on?

This CIR is no better. IMHO it requires a Masters in English to correctly interpret the question, so I suspect the bulk of voters will either look to a 'leader' for guidence i.e. church groups and the like, or throw it in the recycling bin.

Posted at 10:34AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

like the 'let's kick criminals in the nuts' one from a few years back which was actually three separate questions all run together.

I deliberately spoiled my ballot on that one, it was so absurd. From memory, I wrote "refuse to answer -- question doesn't make sense" on the form.