Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Pakeha" might nowadays mean an NZ-born person, or whatever, but it can't have done originally. It (presumably) was coined in the late 18th century when Māori needed a word for those funny looking people that kept appearing on local beaches.
Also, ethnicity implies a group with an established common heritage. I don't believe that any post-1600 colonial people have had long enough to really reach that. Maybe Hispanic people, though that gets disputed.
So New Zealander (or indeed Pakeha) isn't an ethnicity now, but probably will be in about 2200. By which time, incidentally, they'll nearly all also be Māori.
But the census should probably let people self-designate their ethnicity (like the US does) and then ask for other data (mothers surname, parents and grandparents place of birth). Using those, it's possible to predict "real" ethnicity with more accuracy than asking people.
-
Something that occurs to me is that the wording of the question is required to:
... be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum;Now, I reckon the question being asked doesn't do this. It doesn't indicate whether and how the Crimes Act should be changed, in other words to reinstate S.59 or something else. any voter is unable to tell what the effect of the referendum would be, should Parliament decide to give it effect.
Obviously the Clerk thought otherwise. I wonder (Graeme?) whether that decision can be challenged, or whether it's covered by parliamentary privilege?
-
Should income tax be reduced by 10% and public spending increased as part of a prudent and responsible economic policy?
or just
Are you a moron?
-
Even if the referendum gets its No vote, Key has said he won't do anything, so the issue will be dead until after the next election. By then child-beating will have been illegal without ill effect for 4 years, and the whole thing will just cease to be an issue.
You don't get anyone bar a small lunatic fringe wanting to allow teachers to beat pupils, do you? Or management to flog lazy staff?
-
Do you think that tedious technical content should be tagged NSFP?
-
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.
-
what would get people to flock to this area on a sunny summer's Sunday afternoon?
Given it's in Auckland, I'd say an IMAX screen or five, a food court, branches of all leading chainstores and convenient parking for 5000 cars.
Was that not the answer you sought?
-
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.
-
That land is now all built over. I have no idea where they are going to marshall the necessary goods trains in the future either.
Once the Fibre Network is built, goods will travel by Internet.
-
J. O. K. E.