The referendumb

A Research New Zealand poll published in the Herald on Sunday shows that only 18% of those polled think the child discipline referendum is “a good use of taxpayer dollars”.

Given that it requires over 10% of voters to sign a petition to force a citizens initiated referendum, I guess I have to give some credit to Family First and their fellow spankers for their organisational ability – they managed to get the signatures of 56% of what is now the support base for the referendum on their petition.

Mind you, some will no doubt have been put off the cause in recent days by their ham-fisted publicity.

Interestingly, the report on the poll states:

Of all the demographic differences in the poll, the only significant difference was between the sexes.

Eighty per cent of female respondents believed the referendum was a waste of money, compared with 70 per cent of male respondents.

Read into thatwhat you want, I guess. It could mean women are more concerned about wasting public money that men, or it could mean that men are more into hitting kids than women.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “The referendumb

  1. Toad by name, toad by nature, huh? How dishonest to conflate this pointless ‘survey’ by Research NZ into the cost of the CIR on smacking with Kiwi’s actual positions on smacking. Feeble really, toad.

    What do you suggest National-Act should do? Break the law and not hold the referendum? John Key has already promised Aunty Sue B that he won’t listen to that nasty public voice. And Sue B is already working on making sure all future referenda are screened by her…

    Ah, isn’t democracy wonderful?

    Tell me toad, do you think MPs should do what the majority of the public tell them to do? Or do you favour the “I’m elected for 3 years, now do as I say or I’ll sic the cops on ya” model?

    Only seems to take a little smack to bring out the totalitarian in the Green party, sadly.

  2. toad,

    My personal opinion on the poll results is that the public are actually sick of thia referendum business in regards that they are ALL non binding.

    You have both Labour and National treating public referendums with utter distain resulting in the malaise surrounding this type of democratic procedure.

    Labour too scared to have that referendum run at the time of the general election and National saying that they wont take any notice of the result.

    Sue Bradfords tinkering on the edges is an insult to the voting public.

    The Green party should be pursuing the angle that ALL referendums should be binding. Not sure if the Green party socialist wing actually wants to have the democratic process called bing citizen referendums. Cant control a population of “deniers” and “spankers” if they can tell you what to do.

    ANd what is this name calling coming into the Green party? deniers, spankers, etc.

    Dont ridicule people if you want them to vote for you in the future.

    Calling people unflattering names usually menas that you have lost an argument and consider their opinion as having no merit.

    Good way to build anomosity, instead of bridges of change towards your point of view. Childish.

  3. Gerrit says:

    “ANd what is this name calling coming into the Green party?”

    ANd then says:

    “Childish.”

    Funny.

  4. squaredrive cites:

    ” this pointless ’survey’ by Research NZ ”

    during a discussion on a pointless referendum. Poetry.

  5. Toad by name, toad by nature, huh? How dishonest to conflate this pointless ’survey’ by Research NZ into the cost of the CIR on smacking with Kiwi’s actual positions on smacking. Feeble really, toad.

    You don’t think that people who really passionately felt that the referendum needed a certain answer would say it isn’t a waste of taypayer money? In some ways I think this sort of question is a good way to measure how “hard” support is for the proposition, and the answer seems to be not very. Just a lot of soft support from people who don’t really care about the issue and have been confused into thinking they’re going to be snapped into jail for losing their temper.

    What do you suggest National-Act should do? Break the law and not hold the referendum? John Key has already promised Aunty Sue B that he won’t listen to that nasty public voice. And Sue B is already working on making sure all future referenda are screened by her…

    For a start, the Government could pass a law tightening up the referenda questions before this one goes out, and make it apply to the current referendum.

    Sue doesn’t want to personally screen referenda questions, she wants the Clerk of the House to have the ability to veto wording that is leading, misleading, or too complex, without having the ability to reject the question altogether. That sounds fair to me.

    My personal opinion on the poll results is that the public are actually sick of thia referendum business in regards that they are ALL non binding.

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure there’s an element of that, but I’d guess we’d still see a majority thinking the referendum was a waste if only because of the useless question asked.

    The Green party should be pursuing the angle that ALL referendums should be binding. Not sure if the Green party socialist wing actually wants to have the democratic process called bing citizen referendums. Cant control a population of “deniers” and “spankers” if they can tell you what to do.

    It’s always been a strong Green Party belief that rights and protections for a minority group or a disenfranchised group like children or youth shouldn’t be taken away by referendum. Were it a referendum on an issue of policy that did not involve protection from violence I’m sure we’d be all for listening to the voice of the public. We’ve taken similar positions on issues that do not involve rights infringements before.

  6. Ok Ari, so:
    For a start, the Government could pass a law tightening up the referenda questions before this one goes out, and make it apply to the current referendum.

    I’m sure John Key and Sue Bradford would come up with a wonderful referendum question; perhaps “Isn’t the government doing a peachy keen job for children?”

    Oh, and The Clerk of the House already has the ability to change referenda wording to clarify it. So the only thing Sue B wants to do is “personally screen” the Clerk’s interpretation to get the ‘correct’ wording, aye?

    And the S59 referendum wording was slightly changed, and was publicly Gazetted asking for people/groups what they thought about the wording – the Greens didn’t comment on the wording, did they? Just now Sue B claims it is terrible wording, when she could have asked for changes months back…

    But all this is kinda trumped by your confession Ari, that the Green party are not listening to the public voice:

    Were it a referendum on an issue of policy that did not involve protection from violence I’m sure we’d be all for listening to the voice of the public. [Emphasis added]

    Gobsmacking really. But a true admission of the state of play on S59. The only questions now Ari, are – who gets to decide what is a “[human] rights infringement”? Just Green party MPs, party members, or do the public get a say? Do the Green MPs get to override our public say if we elect them to tackle climate change?

  7. Pingback: The communicator « g.blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s