Entry 1040, on 2009-06-24 at 22:42:51 (Rating 3, Politics)
We live in a democracy which means that the people are supposed to have the real power, but how far should that concept be taken? This is the question effectively being asked with the debate on citizen initiated referenda which is happening in New Zealand at the moment.
A CIR must be run if a petition gains a certain number of votes (I can't remember how many it is but its a fairly respectable number). Everyone on the electoral roll in New Zealand gets to vote on the issue so it costs quite a lot to run, but the final outcome isn't binding on the government. Even if everyone voted in favour of something the government is under no obligation to carry out that wish. The question is then: should they be?
Personally I don't think so although the poll run on the Herald web site today suggests I'm in the minority because 75% of the participants there voted that referendum results should be binding.
The problem with referenda is that they are generally meaningless. In the ones which I recall the questions have been so poorly worded that the outcome really means nothing. The current referendum poses this question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Its a silly question designed to elicit a particular response and I remember previous questions about crime and punishment being equally worthless.
As I blogged about on 2009-06-18 in an entry titled "Ask a Silly Question" I don't intend to vote one way or the other. Instead I will record a complaint about the process itself and send the paper back.
So do people really think that votes on questions posed in such emotive, biased and illogical terms should be binding? I certainly hope that if people really stopped to think about it they would realise that this is not a process we should be following. I'm afraid the greatest extent that the people should gain true power is through who they vote for at each general election, and I'm not even sure they are responsible enough to even do that!
Two points I would like to raise on this post:
1) The current CIR: I agree that the question is loaded but it is NOT confusing. Vote YES is you like Bradford's law change, vote NO if you want to go back before Bradford (i.e. before S59 amendment act). How difficult is that? The whole matter has been well publicised for several years now, so no excuses. Only opponents - scared of the outcome I suspect - are trying to downplay they upcoming referendum. They should just tick YES and zip it.
As a side point the cost of this CIR is a non issue in my view since a) it is a small price to pay for this aspect of democracy (just ask many Iranians what price they'd be prepared to pay), and b) the previous Labour-led government had the opportunity to have it at the same time as last years general election and therefore save the majority of the cost.
2) The wider issue of binding CIR: We must be careful of populist issues that really don't have long-term benefits. In the case of this one, Norm Withers violent crime one, and Jim A's firefighters one, I think the point is more to send a clear message to our politicians rather than change the law directly as a result. If it was to be binding then yes the wording must be fair and not loaded. Maybe the MMP referendums are a good example of this, and then maybe direct democracy does indeed have its place.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2009-06-25 at 20:19:10:
1. No, the vote isn't about that law. If it was the question would be something like "do you want to see amendment S59 (or whatever) repealed?" That's the sort of question that makes sense. The current question is nonsense. The cost is an issue because its a waste of time. Its non-binding for a start. Even the PM has said its a bad question.
2. I totally agree, we should be careful of populist issues with no long term benefits. That's why this referendum should never happen. I agree that direct democracy has a place but the process has to be tidied up in some way so it doesn't just turn into a joke.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2009-06-28 at 09:40:57:
1. Stop hiding behind wording though. I already said this question was loaded but this is an issue that has - more or less - clear lines of demarcation. Just tick the box that agrees with your point of view. Simple, eh? And even if the the question was skewed in the other direction, I would say the same.
2. In your little mind you focus on what suits you instead of looking at the bigger issue which I raised. Sad. And for the record I never said that this referendum should not take place (somewhat implied by your comment 'I totally agree..'"). As I said these referendums send a clear message... (need I repeat what I said already?)
Let's not forget 300,000 NZers signed this petition. Not a number to sneeze at. I wouldn't imply that as a joke by any means.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2009-06-28 at 16:07:21:
Sorry, but I still disagree. If we are going to spend millions on referenda where we want to get a fair idea of public opinion and possibly even act on that, then I think there should be basic minimum standards the questions must reach.
I focus on the big picture and on what is reasonable and logical. This referendum is so obviously the work of a group with extreme political views trying to push their warped ideas on the rest of us. Ironic really since that's what they are saying the law does to them!
Interesting how you still criticise the cost yet fail to comment on the fact that Labour could have coincided it with the last election. Sort of nailing your colours really...And I see you go for the populist view now re the poll on the cost (not the issue)!! You are really full of surprises! Funny how the majority view only comes up when it suits you.
Also interesting that you refer to "the group" as having extreme political views yet 80% of the population were against Bradfords bill (long before the referendum came up).
They got 300,000 signatures! They can have a referendum. That is the law. I think you should stop getting emotional with the issue at hand and focus on what is law in this country.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2009-07-02 at 10:42:13:
I really don't care when it might have been run, its a waste of time and money and I object to the system being hijacked for political posturing of this sort. You quoted the number's supporting the idea so I quoted the numbers rejecting it. I'm not saying the majority is always right, just that most people have seen through this whole debacle.
I'm not arguing about Bradford's bill, I'm arguing against referenda being used for propaganda purposes and having no real point.
I agree that this referendum should go ahead because that's the current law. What I'm saying is we should treat this nonsensical waste of time with the contempt it deserves, refuse to participate, waste millions of dollars, and hope the law is changed in the future.
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2009-07-03 at 10:18:18:
They didn't reject it, they just didn't agree with the cost. BIG difference, a difference completely nullified had Labour included with the last election, which they could have, based on time limits. So your argument in the first paragraph holds no weight.
"Propaganda" is a term that is a bit of a stretch IMO. In case you hadn't noticed, a significant proportion of the populace are against the Bradford bill. I worry about your skewing of the situation.
Regarding contempt, refusal to participate, well that is your prerogative. What is something that is important to me - and what I suspect you may agree with me on - is the RIGHT and privilege of the electorate to participate in part of democracy that exists in NZ. I may also completely disagree with the initiators, I may disagree with the question, and I may also disagree with the result. BUT I will NEVER disagree with the right for people to pursue this avenue of democracy, regardless of how crazy I think think the motive or question is. I think it is an important avenue (despite being non-binding) because as I said before if gives the opportunity for the electorate to send a message to the govt of the day (even if defeated). This is the critical point. I am so tired of the left trying to shut down our freedom to express outselves. Recent examples are of course the Electoral Finance Act, but also this saga, the pledge card retrospective legislation, and the Foreshore and Seabed Act (nullifying our courts).
What is wrong with the people having their say, even if you disagree with the organisers? Ever considered that the shoe may be on the other foot soon enough?
Comment 8 by OJB on 2009-07-03 at 11:18:10:
The thing that is wrong with people having their say on this occasion is that they are cynically manipulating the system (at our expense) and deliberately distorting the question. I totally agree people should have their say but if they want to do it through a serious, official mechanism like referenda there should be certain basic standards they should meet. They clearly haven't met those standards on this occasion (and almost everyone knows that).
Comment 9 by SBFL on 2009-07-03 at 12:15:48:
So obviously the people cannot have their say if it disagrees with your views. I have to say, this is not surprising. And as for your "at our expense" quip I can only assume you blame the previous Labour-led govt for this since they had the opportunity to include this with the 2008 election. You should be upfront about this. Apparently you chose not to be. Hmmm, again, not a surprise.
Comment 10 by OJB on 2009-07-03 at 13:27:16:
No, as I said above, everyone can have their say. But they shouldn't expect to be able to use an expensive political mechanism like a referendum to have their say. Find another way.
OK, fine, so maybe Labour should have run the referendum at the election. I'm ignoring that because its not significant. The question I'm interested in is whether badly worded, misleading referenda should be run at all.
Comment 11 by SBFL on 2009-07-06 at 09:35:37:
Thank-you. With the comment you think people should "find another way" really only back-ups my point of the left preferring to clamp-down on people having their say.
Re cost: Okay granted, but if it is not signficant, then why carry on about the cost? I agree this is not critical, and the wording of referendums in general is paramount to them ever becoming binding (if non-binding then I am not so worried about the wording since it is more about sending a message to our politicians rather than making/changing law). Of course bad wording is a matter of opinon and often vested/partisan interests but if a referendum is to be binding, then I agree that the wording should be resonable and fair, and be approved by the majoriy of pariamentary parties (measured by seats).
Comment 12 by OJB on 2009-07-06 at 10:55:25:
We can go around and around in circles over this forever. I think everyone should have their say, even people who talk total crap like creationists because then the rest of us can debate them (and also have a bit of a laugh). All I'm saying (and if you still don't get this then let's just forget it) is that a serious political mechanism like this should not be used for propaganda purposes by deliberately using questions with no real validity.
The cost is significant but whether Labour should have run this particular referendum at the election isn't because I'm talking about referenda in general. Even if the cost was zero I still wouldn't want to see what is supposed to be a serious democratic tool misused like this.
The only message being sent to politicians (judging by their response) is "we are going to cynically manipulate the system and fool people into voting the way we want because they cannot really see through the superficial facade of our one sided propaganda". Not the sort of message the politicians are really interested in, I think!
Comment 13 by SBFL on 2009-07-07 at 06:53:04:
No I do get it, but have added my flavour on whether it is binding or non-binding.
"Even if the cost was zero" is in contradiction to "The cost is significant".
Like I said vested/partisan interests overwhelms some people. For me, whatever the result, the message will be clear assuming a clear majority. The law is okay as it is, or the Bradford law is not. Really, doesn't take too many brain cells to work that out.
Comment 14 by OJB on 2009-07-07 at 14:22:51:
Obviously there is less potential harm from asking silly questions if referenda are non-binding so that would be my preference. If a mechanism could be designed where real questions could be asked in a reasonable way I think binding referenda might be possible, but even then I would be cautious.
The cost is significant, but even if it was zero... I can't see the contradiction there.
If it was about the law why not ask that question "should law number xxx continue as it is or be modified" or something like that. That is not what this question asks. The current question has been cynically manipulated to elicit a particular response and most people (including the prime minister) know it means nothing.
Comment 15 by SBFL on 2009-07-10 at 10:17:17:
Para 1: Point taken.
Para 2: I think the cost issue is detraction from the real debate. Do we agree that despite the issue, despite the wording, despite binding or not, the cost is practically negligible compared to not having the option of some form of direct democracy?
Para 3: We've already covered wording etc. I think my point is that if a significant proportion of the population want the matter discussed, then we should retain that ability. If 10% sign a petition saying "lets rethink this" then for me, that is a solid platform to at least debate it on a national level (this is all on the current premise of non-binding referenda of course).
Comment 16 by OJB on 2009-07-10 at 12:32:26:
I think that if we are going to have direct democracy, whatever the cost, then it should be effective and not so readily hijacked by pressure groups with such an obvious agenda. I think this issue should be debated, maybe through a referendum, but let's just make sure the question is reasonable and unbiased so we get a realistic result.
Agreed. Let's debate it. But let's debate the issue, not a poorly worded sub-topic which is specifically designed to allow only one answer.
Comment 17 by SBFL on 2009-07-11 at 09:19:59:
That's just a cop-out and you know it. Like I said way back in comment 1, despite the loaded wording the voting lines are clear. Only the village idiot might cast his vote the wrong way. Place your vote, done, easy. Otherwise it's just pure whining from those who care more for the politics than actual parenting.
Comment 18 by OJB on 2009-07-11 at 13:13:05:
OK, we will just have to disagree on this one. I think questions on important issues should be well formed and unambiguous, you think anything goes, including stuff specifically designed to get an unrealistic result. I guess we believe in different types of democracy!
Comment 19 by SBFL on 2009-07-11 at 13:48:48:
"I think questions on important issues should be well formed and unambiguous" - well get cracking buddy. Design your own question and get 300,000 people to sign for it to become a referendum.
"you think anything goes, including stuff specifically designed to get an unrealistic result. I guess we believe in different types of democracy!" - you really can be an ass sometimes. Why do you continue you misrepresent my views? I talked about the wording, I talked about sending a message, I talked about binding/non-binding, I talked about impact and results from these points. Yet you are quite comfortable ignoring all that context and then go and try to wrap my viewpoint in some single line that is falsely represented in every way. Shame on you!!!
Comment 20 by OJB on 2009-07-11 at 13:57:05:
Unfortunately its only the questions like the one we already have that get certain proportions of the population sufficiently motivated to get the required numbers. This is the whole problem: the system is totally flawed.
Well you said you thought the current question should go ahead. Most people agree with me that it is a bad question (even the PM, who you seem to respect). Does that not mean you support open democracy based on poorly defined issues such as the current one?
Comment 21 by SBFL on 2009-07-11 at 14:09:50:
No, you have the right to get your question out, on the same subject. Why would you assume the wording motivates the people? I would say it's the issue. The issue is clear, the choice is clear. You can vote or not. Don't like the wording? Then get your own 300,000 signatures. You have this option. It's better than just complaining.
And yet again you have ignored my context. Did you not listen to our debate? Trying to simplify matters to suit you is just plain lazy. You can do better.
Comment 22 by OJB on 2009-07-11 at 14:25:40:
Well let's just summarise things then. I think we both agree binding referenda are potentially dangerous. But we both think non-binding are potentially a good idea. I think they are more harmful than good if the questions are badly worded. What about you? I think this question is badly worded, and so do the majority of New Zealanders, including the PM. What about you? Let's get your answers to those two questions and go form there.
Comment 23 by SBFL on 2009-07-11 at 15:02:56:
You said "Well let's just summarise things then." - not good enough. I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that you have blatantly misrepresented me and I am still waiting for you to recant.
I have already said that:
- binding referenda is good if the wording is not loaded. It is an option available to society where they see the govt as going rogue.
- this referendum is non-binding, has a loaded question but is more about sending a message from the populace than setting anything in law.
- this issue before us is not confusing.
Why do you keep referring to the PM in support of your views? I didn't realise you were such a fan. Funny how you put so much weight on his views when it agrees with you....
Comment 24 by OJB on 2009-07-11 at 15:26:24:
Not sure what I have misrepresented. That's why I wanted to get back to the point where we knew what each other actually thought.
OK, so you are saying that this is a bad question but because its non-binding that doesn't matter. I can almost support that. Its still a waste of money still but I'm prepared to ignore that.
I do actually quite like the current PM. You seem to think I'm a Labour fan but that's not true. I don't particularly like either party, but I do defend Labour when they are unfairly criticised by supporters of the right.
Comment 25 by SBFL on 2009-07-12 at 09:30:58:
Re para 1: Do I always have to spell everything out for you? Or are you just continuing to play childish games? It would not be an issue if you acknowledged that you overstepped the mark in your summation of my view. I wouldn't have cared if you put a smiley face after it (indicating a tongue in cheek comment) or if you said later that maybe you wrapped up unfairly. Thing is, this isn't the first time. Anyway, read back from comment 18 and I ask you to stop putting false twists to my intent in order to suit your line of argument.
Re para 2: I spoke of this already (sending a message in non-binding). And in fact I spoke of this previous speaking already! How many times must I repeat myself to you? You may not agree with me, but please give me the respect of paying attention to my comments in this debate.
Re para 3: I know you're not a Labour supporter (more Green) as I have paid attention to your past comments. But you are of the left persuasion and you are more pro-Labour than National. To be honest I don't know who exactly you would vote for, so I don't presume you to be a particular support or member of any specific party. But we know you are of the the left, and that is definition enough. You agree with matters across the centre line from time to time, and so do I. Bet we know where the battle lines are drawn!!
Comment 26 by SBFL on 2009-07-12 at 09:49:40:
Look, to wrap this one up, I actually think we were never so far apart on this issue.
- I stated the current smacking referendum question is loaded. I think you agree with this.
- I stated that for binding referendum (i.e. becomes law) the wording should be fair and reasonable. I think you agree with this.
- I stated the cost for this particular referendum is not a concern because the previous govt could have included at the last general election. I think you agree with this.
- I also said that despite the chance to include it at the last election, the cost is small in relation to the peoples opportunity for an alternative method for 'having a say'. I think you disagree with this because in your view loaded wording nullifies any benefit (fair assumption?)
- And finally I said that despite loaded wording in CIR, in the case of a non-binding referendum, the wording is almost irrelevant (cf. to the case of a binding one) because it is more about the public sending the government a message, rather than creating legislation directly. As a result I think the question is not of importance, but the issue is. I believe you disagree with this also because wording is still the key point for you in this instance as well.
Is my assessment fair? If so, maybe we agree to agree on the points we share, and agree to disagree on the points we don't.
Comment 27 by OJB on 2009-07-12 at 12:26:46:
Yes, I think that is a fair approximation of what we both think. It really just gets down to whether its worth the time and money (the fact that it could have been included at the election is irrelevant) for something that everyone who matters (including the PM, the leader of a party opposing the one which created the legislation) will ignore because its not a fair question.
Comment 28 by SBFL on 2009-07-12 at 12:33:53:
Okay then, settled.
One more thing. National voted for the new Bradford law and recently they signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Green party. So I do not understand what you mean by: "(including the PM, the leader of a party opposing the one which created the legislation)"
Comment 29 by OJB on 2009-07-12 at 14:14:11:
OK, they voted for it did they, I stand corrected. So that's all tidied up then, I guess.
"If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter [anti-smacking law] is proof there is a God - and that he or she has a wicked sense of humour.
How else to explain the private member's bill promoted by Act's John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a "light" smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament's order paper for debate.
The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member's bills - plus the timing just days after the referendum result - suggested divine intervention."
Comment 31 by OJB on 2009-08-29 at 20:54:25:
Only 28-1 against? That's not very impressive. If (s)he'd really wanted to make a point (s)he could have provided the group opposing the law with extra funds by having them win Lotto at several million to 1 against!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE