Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
11. Which ethnic group do you belong to?
mark the space or spaces that apply to youNew Zealand European
Māori
Samoan
Cook Island Maori
Tongan
Niuean
Chinese
Indian
other ( such as DUTCH, JAPANESE, TOKELAUAN ). Please state:I'm sorry, but is it people who respond "New Zealander" who are getting confused with nationality, or is the people who wrote the question?
Ultimately the responses are collated at a number of levels. First the responses to this question around ethnicity are grouped into:
European
Mäori
Pacific Peoples
Asian
Middle Eastern/Latin American/African*
Other Ethnicity
Not Elsewhere IncludedThe responses are then grouped in the following categories:
European nfd*
New Zealand European
Other European
Mäori
Pacific Peoples nfd*
Samoan
Cook Islands Maori
Tongan
Niuean
Tokelauan
Fijian
Other Pacific Peoples
Asian nfd*
Southeast Asian
Chinese
Indian
Other Asian
Middle Eastern
Latin American
African
Other Ethnicity
Not Elsewhere Included* not further defined
And then into these still more specific categories:
European nfd*
New Zealand European
Other European nfd*
British and Irish
Dutch
Greek
Polish
South Slav
Italian
German
Australian
Other European
Mäori
Pacific Peoples nfd*
Samoan
Cook Islands Maori
Tongan
Niuean
Tokelauan
Fijian
Other Pacific Peoples
Asian nfd*
Southeast Asian nfd*
Filipino
Cambodian
Vietnamese
Other Southeast Asian
Chinese
Indian
Sri Lankan
Japanese
Korean
Other Asian
Middle Eastern
Latin American
African
Other Ethnicity
Not Elsewhere Included* not further defined
Finally, any other response that garnered 1000 or more mentions get listed in the results as well.
If Statistics New Zealand thinks Australian is an ethnicity, I'm having a hard time figuring why they've a problem with considering New Zealand as an ethnicity.
-
the obvious answer to me is 'It's not.' (Wasn't that the point of giving the police discretionary powers?) But I really want them to lose - so I'll be voting 'yes'.
The point of re-stating the discretionary power that already existed anyway, was to make people think that the answer is 'It's not' when the law is that a smack is now a criminal offence.
-
Obviously the Clerk thought otherwise. I wonder (Graeme?) whether that decision can be challenged, or whether it's covered by parliamentary privilege?
I don't believe it would be covered by parliamentary privilege, but it's a little late to challenge it now.
-
I think that I heard during Question Time today that the wording could be altered if the Ref Organisers were willing. Tail end with something about a consultation with the Clerk? Anyone out there?
Not at this point in the process. Far too late for that now (without a law change).
-
a whole lot of our compatriots not knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity
I thought the major problem was our Government not wanting to ask a question about race.
-
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.
I was looking out for that one when Unite had announced they'd applied, I don't believe it appeared on Parliament's home page. I can't remember what the question said when submitted, but I can't see a problem with it now, so assume my concern was fixed anyway.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?