Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:35AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

My view is that this measure might well pass, but not by over 50% of the electorate. Refusing to cast a formal vote undermines the credibility and helps Key and Goff to treat the result with the contempt it deserves.

Posted at 10:35AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Graeme: Thanks for answering my question before I asked it. Spooky! :)

I think our best hope is to put about the idea that voting "yes" means "yes, I can smack my kids".

Peter: With all due (and sincere) respect, you really think lying is a smart or ethical strategy? Personally, I'm predicting an extremely low turnout, which should give Key plenty of cover to stick to the position he's already signalled.

Posted at 10:36AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

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

Ah, thanks Graeme, look at that, a big juicy 'and whatever else you want' clause.

I'd still be happier with something that, up with the 'two answers' criteria, included a 'one question' criteria, and a 'neutral weighting' clause.

Posted at 10:37AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I don't believe one should dignify this exercise with a formal vote.

Which is my response to this whole nonsense so far.

However, I have voted religiously in everything since I was eighteen. That is because I believe in participating in civil affairs, even if just by reading the candidate blurb and voting. Every fibre in my being revolts at the idea of just not voting.

If it can be confirmed that the number of spoilt ballots is counted and released, I would do that instead.

Posted at 10:37AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

and a 'neutral weighting' clause.

And how would that work? I take your point, but I don't know if that's something the Clerk of the House should have to determine.

Posted at 10:39AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

If it can be confirmed that the number of spoilt ballots is counted and released, I would do that instead.

I've sent an e-mail to the Election wallahs asking that very question. Will share when I get an answer.

Posted at 10:42AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Q. Should a swift and sure kick to Larry Baldock's bollocks as part of good societal correction be a criminal offence in NZ?

A. Not at all. Where do I line up?

Posted at 10:43AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

and a 'neutral weighting' clause.

And how would that work? I take your point, but I don't know if that's something the Clerk of the House should have to determine.

I don't know, I wish I did. The current system, however, where the question is written by one side of the debate, seems designed to produce poor questions, and that's certainly what it does. Even the uncontroversial firefighters' referendum was basically 'firefighters deserve and cuddle and a puppy' with a question mark bunged on the end.

What we've got here is a situation where pretty much everyone can see that the question is fatally flawed, but there's nothing that can be done about it. Given the clerk has to vet the question anyway, that seems the logical place to insert further checks.

Posted at 10:45AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

A reminder (and a large caveat - I couldn't find the original article on the Stuff website, so pinched this off Family First!)

The Press 16 May 2007

A bill outlawing physical punishment is set to be voted into law tonight, two years after it was forced onto the political agenda. Opponents of the bill are now resting their hopes on a petition which seeks to force a referendum against the bill. But a referendum would not be binding and would not stop the law coming into force a month from now. A $35,000 advertising campaign is being run in major daily newspapers today by the petition organisers, who say they already have 180,000 signatures. They need 300,000 signatures to force a referendum. But tonight's vote is expected to overwhelmingly back the Sue Bradford-sponsored bill, after a compromise was thrashed out between Prime Minister Helen Clark and National Party leader John Key.

(my emphasis)

Therefore, the majority of signatories wanted a referendum on their fears. Not on the law.

Posted at 10:47AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

If we're going to expect the Clerk of the House to be the logic and good prose maven, the poor bastard (or bitch, to be non-sexist about it) is going to need serious danger money and counselling on tap. :)

Posted at 10:50AM 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

They won't lose, unfortunately, because they're the ones with the desire for action, so they're motivated. The more people who vote "yes" to this asinine question, the less crowing they'll be able to do after the event. Let's hope that apathy doesn't rule on this one.

Posted at 10:53AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

No no, parental correction. The correcting of parents.

Oh I understand now. I thought it was wingnuts wanting to beat their kids again.

But actually it will mean if I see someone being a bad parent I can give them a good smack. Well that sounds fun.

Posted at 10:53AM 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?"

I have to agree with this. I know the question "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" doesn’t make sense because at the moment as it isn’t illegal to smack as a part of good parental correction - so why ask the question? However, I believe if I don’t vote yes, I will be giving more power to those who opposed the law, for whatever reason the cling to, to claim they are the majority.

I understand that the stupidity of the question is enough to enrage any sensible person, but the law is presently working as designed, I want to actively support it. I will vote for it with a yes.

Posted at 10:54AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

The question makes no sense and needs to be mentally rewritten before it can be answered. I think I'll act as if it says "Should it be a crime to punch a four year old in the face or repeatedly hit a seven year old with a soup ladle?"

Posted at 11:00AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

And how would that work? I take your point, but I don't know if that's something the Clerk of the House should have to determine.

I don't know if there are any relevant comparisons in nation-states, but I set up a students association constitution (referenda are binding on some matters, not on others) where the wording is open to submissions, but the final wording is set by the honorary solicitor of the association.

Couldn't CIR be kicked to the Law Society or something for an independent body that isn't parliament or a subset of it, for the purpose of writing sentences that make sense and possibly have some use?

Posted at 11:00AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I am not convinced that stupidity (in the view of many, most?) is a reason to change the law on referendums. Is stupidity a reason not to select or elect MPs, City Councillors or other politicians? I think you'll find the answer is no.

Shouldn't the framers of referendums be free to choose to do something you might think illogical but which 10% of the population thinks sufficiently OK (by whatever criteria) to actively sign a petition asking for the question to be put?

The restrictions on gathering signatures and how much you can spend are a high barrier to purely vexatious questions.

The referendums are not binding.

This referendum will be the fourth. The last was the Norm Withers one of four parts of which people might have agreed with enough of them to vote Yes:

'Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?'

I don’t remember Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark attacking this referendum which is poorly written too.

And I don’t think $9 million, or $36 over 16 years is excessive for the right of citizens to initiate non-binding referendums.

Posted at 11:02AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Judy, Public Servant... et. al.:

I get where you're coming from and totally respect that. But I don't want to "empower" people who think costly meaningless referenda are a worthwhile substitute for meaningful political action and policy debate.

And if you're not going to pay me the respect of posing a question that doesn't make James Joyce look like Hemmingway, I'll repay the discourtesy.

Posted at 11:03AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

A few thoughts:

1. Informal votes were not reported in 1995 but were reported (and here) in 1999. I've asked the Chief Electoral Office what will happen this time.

2. I've asked (OIA) for a breakdown of the $9M budget. There were over 2.5M voters enrolled for the 2008 election, so that's about $3.60 per person.

3. They may have estimated a high turnout for budget purposes, and if turnout is not that high then variable costs will diminish. Not defending the dollars, just a bit of perspective.

4. Is CIR Act still relevant? Well, it was enacted in 1993 by the Bolger Govt in a very different New Zealand. We had just come out of six years of frantic change driven by Roger Dougals et al. Talkback was the most readily available medium for the angry and frustrated.

4. Gathering signatures on a paper form was virtually cutting-edge technology.

5. In 2009, we are a connected nation. (Can anybody find good recent data on internet access?) With media sites and blogs, virtually anyone can choose to interact: viz 15 Labour MPs on Red Alert. Trevor Mallard is soliciting views on specific questions.

6. So I think much as I love the concept of CIR, it may well be timely to have another look at the operation of the Act.

Posted at 11:06AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

A friend of mine has suggested we could next have a referendum asking "Should a whack as part of good husbandly correction be a crime in NZ?"

It's disappointing that the citizens intiated referendum process just seems to be a really costy opinion poll, except with questions that professional polling companies wouldn't use due to them being poorly written.

Posted at 11:11AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I am not convinced that stupidity (in the view of many, most?) is a reason to change the law on referendums. Is stupidity a reason not to select or elect MPs, City Councillors or other politicians? I think you'll find the answer is no.

That's a good reductio ad absurdum, Darel, and if the Electoral Act was as nonsensical as the CIR Act I'd agree with you. Various politicians may be a waste of space, but I'm sure you'd have to grant that our elections are run under a rigorous and corruption-free framework. It's those damn electors who keep fucking up. :)

Posted at 11:14AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

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.

Made sense to me - I didn't support hard labour, so I voted no.

If it can be confirmed that the number of spoilt ballots is counted and released, I would do that instead.

The numbers were in 1999.

In answer to the question "Should the size of the House of Representatives be reduced from 120 members to 99 members?" there were 17,699 informal votes.

In answer to the question "Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?" there were 22,849 informal votes.

the poor bastard (or bitch, to be non-sexist about it) is going to need serious danger money and counselling on tap. :)

I don't believe it's gender-specific.

Posted at 11:15AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I certainly understand where you're coming from too Craig.

"...make James Joyce look like Hemmingway"

Great line.

Posted at 11:20AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Couldn't CIR be kicked to the Law Society?

The Law Society often makes submissions on bills, focusing not on policy but on whether the bill as written would make workable law. They are quite picky as you'd expect. I don't know if CIR proposals are on their radar, I would hope so.

There are no CIR proposals for open for submissions on wording. There is one (only) CIR petition with wording approved and open for signature - the Unite petition on the minimum wage

I must make a point of keeping an eye out for any new proposals.

Posted at 11:20AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I know the question "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" doesn’t make sense because at the moment as it isn’t illegal to smack as a part of good parental correction - so why ask the question?

I'm not going to explain how this works again, but at present it is illegal to smack as part of good parental correction. There's a whole other post for that, if you'd like to know why and how.

Posted at 11:21AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

At the risk of providing needless gender-related detail, the current Clerk, Mary Harris, took over from the long-standing former Clerk, David McGee, after he left the office in November 2007 to become an Ombudsman. Both have/had plenty of good counsel.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/ParlSupport/Agencies/OOC/Who/4/d/8/00CLOOCAdminAgenciesOOCAboutWho1-Who-we-are.htm

Posted at 11:24AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

I'm also in the 'Yes' camp. My own view is that the wording is intentionally dicky as it discourages voting from those of us who are happy with the law as it stands but are not as engaged in the debate as those opposed.

A non-vote (in my view) plays into the hands of those who framed the question. I also fear they will easily achieve their goal of a large majority (though, hopefully, not an actual majority of electors).

Posted at 11:28AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Bart:

But actually it will mean if I see someone being a bad parent I can give them a good smack. Well that sounds fun.

Just be sure to have the right tools for the job. (may be NSFW)

Posted at 11:28AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

A non-vote (in my view) plays into the hands of those who framed the question. I also fear they will easily achieve their goal of a large majority (though, hopefully, not an actual majority of electors).

I'd be slightly more worried if we were in California and this was a ballot initiative. Those buggers are binding, and they tend to be spectacularly dumb.

Posted at 11:29AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

Pass. If they think the law is working why not vote in favour of the status quo?

So, even though they have both expressed support for the current law, and have both said they won't vote but have criticised not only the question as asked but called into question the CIR legislation as it stands, effectively giving an up yours to every single person who signed the petition, and even though you're personally advocating defacing the ballot and essentially taking the same position as Key and Goff, you're still going with the 'pox on both their houses' thing? Fascinating.

Posted at 11:31AM on 17 Jun 09. Permalink.

That reminds me of the warning on Sky Tv
"We advise the use of the parental lock out function"

Or "War on Drugs"...whoa, dude that missile is astral!