Referenda Questions
June 18th, 2009 at 5:00 pm by David FarrarThe Government will consider adopting a Green MP’s bill to prevent confusing and ambiguous referendum questions, Prime Minister John Key said today. …
Today Green MP Sue Bradford said she was hoping her bill to prevent confusing questions would be drawn out of the next ballot.
The Citizens Initiated Referenda (Wording of Question) Amendment Bill required the Clerk of the House to allow only referendum questions which were “not ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading”.
Where a question was not allowed a person would be able to re-write it until it met the criteria.
Firstly I am suspicious about all this sudden concern in the wording of referenda questions. There have been far more ambigious questions in the past. I suspect this is politicians finding reasons in advance to ignore the result of the referendum – because they know the public do not like the new law.
But putting aside the suspicious rationale, it is worth considering the merits of Bradford’s bill. On the face of it, it would make referenda more useful and hopefully harder to ignore.
But it does give huge powers to the Clerk of the House. Now the Clerk is not the sort of person who would abuse such powers but Bradford’s bill is asking her to make subjective judgements, not objective judgements. It is very subjective as to what is leading or misleading. Any decisions made by the Clerk could lead to political attacks on that office – and that would be regrettable.
Tags: Clerk of the House, referendum, Sue Bradford
June 18th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
If I want to make a referendum complaining that the rights of pink elephants are being abused then I should have the right.
It is another question as to whether I would get enough signatures or not.
Let the number of signatures collected determine the validity of a question. Not sue bradford.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Why doesn’t it just require the clerk to have consideration for what the “reasonable person” would consider misleading? That would get rid of the subjectivity and make the test an objective one…. it’s good enough for the rest of the law where objective considerations are required.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I don’t understand why the question is being called misleading or ambiguous.
It is inflammatory, and it emotionalizes the issue. It talks about “good parenting being a criminal offence” instead of addressing the ACTUAL wording of Subsection 2 of Section 59 of the crimes act, which I assume is what the organizers take issue with.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Imagine the howls of protest from Sue Bradford if a Private Members Bill was put up to prevent inflammatory and ambiguous Private Members Bills being drawn from the ballot
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
” I suspect this is politicians finding reasons in advance to ignore the result of the referendum – because they know the public do not like the new law.”
Exactly.
Vote:John Keys credibility is in free fall, what the hell is he doing?
I am really honestly very disapointed.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I wonder whether our elected experts have ever thought the good citizens of NZ are intelligent enough not to sign a petition question they don’t agree with.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Imagine the howls of protest from Patrick Starr if people ever tried to discuss the issues of the day, instead of just bad-mouthing their favourite love-to-hate lefty MPs, which is much more fun…
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Bradford’s reforms, however well intentioned, are simply an invitation to litigation. Anyone who proposes a question and then is told by the Clerk it is “ambiguous”, “misleading”, etc can go off to court and seek judicial review of that decision. Equally, anyone who opposes a particular question can go off to court and argue it should have been rejected on the same basis. This “fixes” a problem by creating a new one.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
For Christ’s sake. The bloody noun (singular) is REFERENDUM. The plural form (or, if you are only semi-literate and need baby words, ‘lots of them’) is REFERENDA.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Dave Mann (6.12). C’mon we draw on Latin, not speak it.
You don’t talk about something your read in or heard on a news medium do you?
But back to the main point.To hell with the politicians. If one-sixth the way through the Parliamentary term they are arrogantly dismissing the wishes of the people who put them there then they ought to look to what’s happening in Teheran. Can’t happen here? Just wait and bloody see.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Bradford and other ‘lefty MPs’ always attempt to silence opposing views. It’s no surprise that ratbiter misses that simple analogy
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
DPF, it seems sensible to promote a Bill to reform something at a time that there is a high public awareness that there is something wrong with what you are trying to reform. Sue Bradford was likely aware of the problem with CIR questions long ago, but I have no problem with her holding back promoting a Bill to reform the CIR Act until the public also became aware of the issue, as they have through the stupid wording of the forthcoming referendum.
Sue Bradford was criticised for promoting Vote 16 without there being sufficient public awareness of the issues (and took the criticism on board and never put that Bill of hers in the Member’s ballot).
Now she seems to be being criticised by some for waiting until there is a public awareness of an issue.
Guess it’s hard to win over here on Kiwiblog if you are a Green MP.
As for opening the Office of the Clerk up to political attack, well someone has to be an arbiter. The Clerk of the House of Representatives is probably publicly perceived as the most objective official of any in public office.
There are rumours (that I am trying to follow up, but haven’t been able to confirm) that someone may be seeking to judicially review the decision of the Clerk to approve the smacking referendum queston on the basis that it does not comply with section 10 of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, and consequently injunct the Electoral Commission from proceeding with the referendum.
I actually think that position is strongly legally arguable in the case of the smacking referendum, but I’m not going there and I hope no-one else does – to preserve the integrity of the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Going there, I would suggest, would be much more unfortunate than what you suggest could happen under Sue Bradford’s Bill – but the Office of the Clerk is already subject to potential political and judicial attack because of the inadequacy of the existing legislation.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Bradfords concern is one shared by every socialist. It is this: If the public are sufficiently aligned on something that the state doesn’t want then the law must be changed so that said alignment can’t happen.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I’m not surprised that Bradford is attempting to prevent questions that confuse.
The followers of her party are regularly confused by “How do you spell GREEN?” giving “RED” as their answer.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Fuck I hate Sue Bradford so much. Pity she didn’t become the Green’s co-leader.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Why does Key continue to deny the wishes of 85% of parents? Six months and he is behaving like Clark. Not what the majority voted for.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Of the 4 CIR questions, the 99 MPs one was worded very well and straight to the point, the crime one should have been 4 seperate questions, the firefighters one OK (although it should have mentioned the number employed on that date, and the anti-smacking bill one leading.
The leadingness of the question makes it easier to discredit, so in drawing up such a question the petitioners shot themselves in the foot.
I think there is merit in the bill, but it should be changed to leave out the “misleading” part (unless a fact was stated in the question, like given that lowering the drinking age has increased alcohol abuse e.t.c should the drinking age be raised to 20?, and the fact that the drinking age had led to more alcohol abuse was wrong) and perhaps a special comittee, instead of the clerk of the house.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I agree it should be kept away from officials as the official would spend an awful amount of time taking advice on getting it exactly right. Perhaps the Justice and Electoral Select Committee could look at the wording, and be required to have a super majority (at least two-thirds) to change the wording. If no agreement is met, the original wording would stand.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Hurf Durf said: Fuck I hate Sue Bradford so much. Pity she didn’t become the Green’s co-leader.
You really are a delightful person HD. Not!
At least her not becoming co-leader means she doesn’t have to be nice to scumbags like you. And she;s forced John Key into stating an unequivocal position regarding that stupid referendum. Good on her.
But wait till you see Metiria in action as Green Co-Leader. I suspect you will not be impressed with her either.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I like your idea Micheal E, of a two thirds majority, so it wil have to be bi-partisan.
I also like the idea of lowering the threshold to 5% instead of 10%, and extending the CIR act to local government.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
read this crap from Government propoganda shop
”
The Government will consider adopting a Green MP’s bill to prevent confusing and ambiguous referendum questions, Prime Minister John Key said today. …
”
Key NZPM NAT is going gay and pink and green and where is he today, and does he have any GUTS,
check his ties,
Vote:he doesn’t have the guts to follow the peoples choice about parental right
and already he is a wealthy pink maori useless auckland poof,
June 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Wreck’s said about all that needs to be said, those organising the referendum have every reason to get the wording right, as they have in this case, it’s simple marketing . Puting the responsibility for the phrasing of the question in the hands of a civil servant? You must be joking.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I am with hurf durf, toad call me a scum bag if it pleases you but, bradford is a liar & charlatan, and if she is like sliced bread toad, why did you keep her under wraps during the election along with commie locke?????
I will tell you why…cause you know as well as I do that 90% of voters, reckon rightly, bradford has no credibility in the electorate.
You watermelons did not want her and locke to upset your election chances by dragging you down by crap profiling.
Liar because she spouts green but her record is coloured thoroughly red.
Charlatan because she tries to hide her true agenda from the public. Thankfully most see through it.
She was voted NZ’s most hated woman for a reason. (admittedly the vote was slighty dodgy) But for NZ’rs to vote at all in this speaks volumes.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
lofty, you have to admit Bradford is a smooth political operator. Got Key, the erstwhile hero of the right, by the short and curlies on this one, hasn’t she?
Fess up, guys. hasn’t she?
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I think there is a role for a Bradford like law. I would have wanted the referendum worded as somthing like –
“do you want to repeal the law that makes smacking a child for dicipline illegal”
but I also find it hard to believe that goff and key are really struggling to understand it and as long as the media focus on the “no vote is a vote for parliment to repeal” then it should still be a reasonable measure. If the results come out 50/50% there the swing vote could easily be the “dumb voter” who votes without really understanding the issues and who were influenced by, for example, the inclusiuon of the word good … but I presume it will probably be more like 70/30%.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Frog wrote someone may be seeking to judicially review the decision of the Clerk to approve the smacking referendum queston on the basis that it does not comply with section 10 of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, and consequently injunct the Electoral Commission from proceeding with the referendum. I actually think that position is strongly legally arguable
OK, If you think it is strongly legally arguable, Frog, provide the legal arguments or be considered as a rabblerouser..
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I think the point is that if you want a referendum to actually have an effect on legislation, then it has to be very clear what the people were, and were not, voting for. The Withers petition on violent crime was a case in point. It asked about hard labour, longer sentences, and reparations for victims. I voted for it, because I supported reparations for victims, but I don’t support hard labour. Others may have voted for the exact opposite reasons. If referendum questions do not clearly indicate the change demanded by its supporters, then they are a waste of time.
For example, you could argue that the current law meets the terms of the pro smacking referendum. Or you could argue that it doesn’t. Since either case is arguable, its a poor guide to legislators as to what the actual will of the people is. You could say “I think that people voted yes because….” but that would only be evidence of your opinion.
Whose interests does it serve to have ambiguous referenda? No ones, I would have thought.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I suspect if God himself was to word every referenda ( thanks Dave ) the bloody politicians would find a way to stifle them. Perhaps it’s time to update wikipedia and take out the bit that labels this country as a democracy.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
ps GNZ says “as long as the media focus on the “no vote is a vote for parliment to repeal” then it should still be a reasonable measure”
oh really? Good enough for an speculative blog maybe. Hardly strong enough to (morally) bind parliament
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
oh toad, I have no particular truck with key, I don’t particularly care if he’s got by the short & curlies, if he has, he needs to wake up.
I do care about bullshitters, liars, charlatans and bullies in the house, cause I have to in part, pay for the bastards.
The list admittedly gets longer by the week, but bradford, locke etc are at the top of the shit heap, oh and wussel the non muscle too!
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
This is the UN crap that comrade Bradford bases her actions on:
“The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child regularly orders the democratically elected governments of UN member countries to prohibit by law all corporal punishment of children, even by their own parents. The Committee is a body of “experts” appointed by UN member states.[2] Although the UN describes these members as “elected”, they are not accountable to anybody: the only democratic input to their appointment is by a secret ballot at a meeting of unelected representatives of UN member states.[3]
The Committee was set up to monitor implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[4] whose text does not refer to corporal punishment or to spanking, caning, strapping, smacking or paddling, only to “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.[5]
Although half its members are not lawyers, and only three of the present members appear to have any experience as jurists,[6] the Committee of its own volition decided some time after the Convention had already come into force in 1990, and without any public consultation or democratic input, to interpret the text as meaning that parental spanking should be made a criminal offence. It is not stated on the UN website whether or not this interpretation has anywhere been tested in an actual court of law, either at an international level or in any country governed by the rule of law.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_discipline
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Is it Shunda? Where has she said this?
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Nandor, the point is, is to require the politicians to listen. Neither Key nor Liarbore nor the Greens want to listen, in this case, for a variety of reasons.
So they find reasons to obfuscate the issue and the only people that are and were ever, confused, are the reef-fish and the journalists.
Those of us who follow politics aren’t in the least confused and each of us have our positions.
It makes me wonder if we wouldn’t be better, if we have citizen-initiated referenda at all, making voting only via the internet compulsory, and having to pass a test to show awareness of the issue, before you’re allowed to make a vote.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Dave said: OK, If you think it is strongly legally arguable, Frog, provide the legal arguments or be considered as a rabblerouser..
Okay, and I have not had contact and do not know how to contat the person whom I have been told may be monting a legal challenge. But the way I see it is there is arguably one:
Section 10(1)(a) of the Act requires the Clerk to determine the wording of the precise question in a manner that:
Given that even John Boscawen clearly didn’t understand the purpose and that John Key and Phil Goff both claim they too don’t, I think it is arguable that the Clerk of the House of Representatives has acted ultra vires section 10 of the Act in determining the wording.
That said, I’m not going to mount a legal challenge because I would rather see the referendum run its dismal course to oblivion. But I still think there is an argument that the Clerk failed to comply fully with the provisions of the Act in determining the wording of it, and that there is potential for legal challenge to it.
Sue Bradford’s bill would put that issue beyond any doubt in future CIRs. I find it interesting that several right wingers on this blog who normally have little time for Green politics have also expressed support for her Bill.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
We should have a private members bills requiring any private members bill be put to a referrendum…
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
so toad..prove me wrong, tell me the reason you & your watermelon mates kept bradford & locke under wraps during the election campaign.
Vote:You gave me a non answer, which is typical of you lot, bend the argument away eh toad, insert some shit so that I might be distracted eh toad.
You lot are really big fibbers.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
MT Tinman writes:
“I’m not surprised that Bradford is attempting to prevent questions that confuse.
The followers of her party are regularly confused by “How do you spell GREEN?” giving “RED” as their answer.”
Thank you Mr Tinman, that is the best laugh I’ve had all week! I’m still giggling!!!
Sue Bradford take note that framing yourself fraudulently as an ‘environmentalist’ to push your communist agenda doesn’t fool many people – or at least the thinking ones among us. You are well aware there is no way you would get any traction as a member of the NZ communist party in contemporary NZ society. I guess even your own party worked out your agenda, hence their refusal to make you co-leader. They may be politically confused about what they believe in – when was smacking an environmental issue? – but they know enough not to let you run the show and turn it into the second coming of The Communists.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Toad
I hope those who are considering a injunction made submissions to the Clerk under s7(2)(b) CIRA.
The fact that significant notice of the question was given and submission sought on its drafting might prompt a judge to slap around any party seeking an injunction at this point. Are those who now quibble with the drafting of the question only just waking up now.
The Courts should not reward such lazyiness not to mention put the taxpayer to any greater expense either in the Courts or in the conduct of the referendum.
Everyone actually knows what the referendum is about despite arguments about the drafting of the question.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I object to the leading word “good” in the referendum question. If this was a question in a poll, you’d know it was worded in such a way as to get a desired result. You’d expect that the poll would have been conducted by some dodgy group, such as environmentalists, who wanted to use the result to back up their position, and discount it as such as being hopelessly unscientific.
So, how about the referendum question being replaced by a neutral: “Should the law provide protection against physical violence equally to adults and children?” Or an emotive: “Should abusive or inadequate parents be allowed to beat small children who won’t do as they’re told?” I suspect that the result of either of those questions would be the opposite of what the current referendum backers want to achieve.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Um, you mate John Boscawen didn’t seem to Chris.
And John Key and Phil Goff have both said they find it ambiguous too.
I’ve done some analysis of it over here.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
John Key should think hard before aligning himself with Sue Bradford on any issue and especially anything to do with anti smacking or anything remotely related to it.
Vote:Labour lost the last election for a number of reasons- however the electorates antipathy to Sue Bradford was most certainly one of them.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
davidp – very well put.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Hey toad and davidp-
You don’t like it, start your own damn petition.
Whiners.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Disappointed doesnt describe how I feel toward Key and this issue.
Vote:If our democracy allows for this political safteyvalve to allow to exist,atleast he and others should show respect.
Can only say that for me to vote for National again ,and I am in an electorate of less than 600 majority he wont be getting my vote again.
I changed from Labour over Pledge card fraud issues, I can honestly say I will not vote labour again for along time,but I definately wont vote for national for denying my rights as a New Zealad taxpayer and citizen.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Key acted like he did well before the election, in voting with Bradford and Clark.
He made a profound mis-judgement. He obviously didn’t understand his base has a different view to their base.
Now he’s stuck with it.
He’s an idiot.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Toad
“And John Key and Phil Goff have both said they find it ambiguous too.”
If this returns a “NO” majority and Goff and Key still cant understand the message that parents who use a correctional smack do not wish to be considered criminals then I suggest they will remain thick at their peril
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
redbaiter>You don’t like it, start your own damn petition.
Because I’d prefer laws to be made on the basis of well reasoned human rights, rather than appeals to populism, collectivism, and emotive language.
In the current case, I believe that children should enjoy the same human rights as adults. Including the right to be protected from violence, however mild and whoever commits it. I don’t believe that this human right should be compromised just because a majority of people vote to do so, any more than a majority should be able to limit free speech.
This is just the latest in a long line of issues to whip up a populist frenzy. I remember a previous one when homosexuality was legalised in the 1980s. People who thought the government had a right to interfere in people’s private lives were opposed to the law change and organised a huge petition. There were large demonstrations attended by all sorts of busy bodies. I suspect that if a referendum had been held, then the majority would have voted to keep it illegal since NZers tend towards conservative leftyism. But the government took no notice and now we wonder what all the fuss was about. I think the law change was an important step towards NZ becoming a modern country where people are treated equally by the law, regardless of who they fancy.
Similarly, I predict that in 20 years time we’ll look back in amazement that people used to think it was okay to hit children who wouldn’t do as they were told or who had too much childish energy. Sort of like we look on in amazement at Islamic scholars (and others) who think it is okay for husbands to beat their disobedient wives.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
A very sad time really, John Key has gone down in my estimation, along with a lot of others it seems…… John, pull you head out of the sand man, you know most that voted for you are in disbelief with you over this…
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Well I hope you don’t live in a democracy david, because that’s precisely how it works.
Should they be able to have sex as well whenever they like with whomever they like? Isn’t that also a “human right?”
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
“I think the law change was an important step towards NZ becoming a modern country where people are treated equally by the law, regardless of who they fancy.”
I’ve actually got a petition going for a referendum on putting homosexuality put back on the list of recognised mental illnesses. (It was taken off in 1973) Got 399,999 signatures so far. Don’t suppose you’d care to make it 400,000 david?
(Jokes aside, what kind of loon starts talking about queers on a damn thread on the smacking petititon Jeeezuz….!!)
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
The easiest solution is sure to make sure Sue Bradford is never allowed to introduce any more silly laws ever again.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
redbaiter>Jokes aside, what kind of loon starts talking about queers on a damn thread on the smacking petititon Jeeezuz….!!
You don’t see the relevance of a petition which purported to have 800,000 signatures to a thread about petitions?
So you want to classify things that you don’t like as mental illnesses? You’re just as much a big-government statist as your Soviet-era soul mates who were quite happy to confine anti-communists to asylums for “treatment”. If you’re so enamoured by big-government interference in people’s private lives, then there are plenty of backward places you could move to. Saudi Arabia perhaps. Or Zimbabwe.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
You mean like you guys are trying to do by classifying parents who undertake physical discipline in a loving context as criminals?
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
reid>Should they be able to have sex as well whenever they like with whomever they like? Isn’t that also a “human right?”
Do you honestly believe that this is an even slightly coherent argument? Children are not allowed to have sex in order to protect them from potential abuse and harm. Whereas in the case of smacking, you’re arguing that children deserve less protection than adults. Don’t you see that these are complete opposites?
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
reid>parents who undertake physical discipline in a loving context
WTF is “a loving context”? That’s maybe the creepiest thing I’ve read in a thread that is just full of weird shit.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
A parent that lovingly smacks their child in order to teach them not to do something harmful is under the current law, a criminal. That means anything goes. A child can do anything because they have equal rights.
That’s obviously what you want, david. Why don’t you admit it.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Yes, that’s because you’re fucked in the head, david.
Let me explain.
A loving context occurs when a child is too young to understand reason, the parent isn’t angry or emotional, but needs to transmit the message to the child but is not intended to injure nor harm, merely to be memorable.
Need to do this goes away when the child begins to respond to reason.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
No, actually it’s not. There are laws covering that one too.
Nandor & Davidp – good comments.
Hang on, isn’t that what Redbaiter says socialists do? Have we misunderstood the poor victim who calls others “whiners”, is he actually a Red? He fits all the descriptions he gives us.
And I dunno, for someone with such a name, he doesn’t seem to like being baited very much.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 12:03 am
I’m betting THIS strikes Davidp as even creepier!
Back to the topic – like Nandor says, what’s the use of ambiguous or irrelevant questions, I have no beef with a referendum, having my say is fun!
Like GNZ suggested, something like this :“do you want to repeal the law that makes smacking a child for dicipline illegal”
Is direct and relevant, not vague, undefined or ambiguous in any respect. That’s what they should be asking (or similar).
Whatever happened to doing things once & doing them well? The smacking question is disgraceful.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Nandor,
if you were never (morally) bounded by anything other than a 100% perfect representation of the publics opinion then you would never be (morally) bounded at all.
I think the public expects its politicians to devote at least a couple of brain cells to understanding what the public wants.
If you could show me a fair question and demonstrate that it got a significantly different answer to this one from a reasonably large sample of the public I’d take that difference into account and consider it a reasonable reason to adjust my opinion on the results.
However
Vote:“Should the law provide protection against physical violence equally to adults and children?”
Or
“Should abusive or inadequate parents be allowed to beat small children who won’t do as they’re told?”
are not fair questions.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am
All this hoo-ha about smacking in a country that is tainted with appalling infanticde and child abuse statistics. Makes no sense to me, but I guess that’s what the lefty turnips think is social justice. What a sick country.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 8:23 am
For all the carry on about the current ref it is the first one that I have no trouble in understanding the question and deciding which way to vote. Really I think a lot of people simply lack comprehension of more than a five word ‘sound bite’.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Who wants to sign a petition for a referendum against fucking communists trying to manipulate our democracy for their agenda?
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 9:32 am
The left’s “enthusasm” for democracy is seen in their concern about wording. They will attack the Bush administration mercilessly but not one bit of concern for human rights and democracy in Iran, logic has nothing to do with the left’s agenda, it is a mad grab for power by angry extremists.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Gulag Archipeligo said: but not one bit of concern for human rights and democracy in Iran
Not true Gulag – see this post at The Standard for a start.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 10:06 am
toad
Vote:clicked on the link and this is what appears;
This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the support department as soon as possible, and please have your site name ready.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I am suprised with John Key. This is a flip flop. This would be a perfect time for him to take the moral high ground which he didn’t when he voted for this law. Rodney Hide said it wasn’t ambiguous yet the news and everyone else does. The news should focus more on Rodney Hide and Act, but they don’t. They have the John Campbell’s out there acting like hysterical housewives. I can remember when some committee or government branch did a survey to see if publlic opinion has changed with the anti smacking law. The results were favourable for it. Conrad Bradford was all over the news saying, “see, what did I tell you” in her loud voice. The news never mentioned once that the questioned asked was misleading. The question read something like, is it good parenting to beat the hell out of your children short of severing an arm? Can’t remember the exact wording but the obvious answer was no, yet conrad Bradford thought it was a fair question. This is outrageous that they want to confuse the public by making rediculous claims that the referendum is ambiguous.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“I think the law change was an important step towards NZ becoming a modern country where people are treated equally by the law, regardless of who they fancy.”
Before the law change how may men were sent to jail for sodomy? I cannot recall reading of many cases in the newspaper except where they were making a nuisance of of themselves in a public toilet and did not not have a high ranking politician to tell the police to go away.
This is what parents are so outraged about. It is not a matter of being charged and convicted it is a matter of what they are doing have been made if effect a criminal offense. Please do not argue semantics.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Please do not argue semantics.
Oh, Chuck… what the hell are you doing? If we had a legal defence for so-called “honour killings” (i.e. my daughter is a dirty whore, who brings shame on my whole family and must therefore die) what is the magical tipping point where it would become onoxious enough to be closed? One cases a year? Ten? Twenty? A hundred?
A few years ago, Parliament closed the loophole where, by definition, a man could not rape his wife. I doubt it was that common, but I can’t say I was too sad when that noxious justification for rape was expunged from the statute books.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Craig, by “Please do not argue semantics.” I was referring to Ryan Sproull who keeps going on the it was always a crime to smack a child. This is a nonsense and has argument has refuted but he keeps raising it again and again. Parents and grandparents take the attack on families seriously and are not interested in clever debates on semantics.
The points you raise are valid as was the argument for homosexual law reform.
However, if they were valid then surely the debate over a law that criminalises parents should not depend on how many parents are charged, convicted and punished but if smacking is a criminal offense.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 11:54 am
toad, I am still waiting, for an answer about bradford. locke.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 11:55 am
It’s my enthusiasm for clarity and spending millions of dollars of tax payers’ money on a question that really is ambiguous, not to mention somewhat loaded (good parenting?).
The question can be read as asking should it be illegal to smack parents. Now I know that only the disengenuous would read it that way, but still, why should I be happy with a question so poor that the PM even refuses to take it seriously.
It’s like the referendum has been sabotaged by the people behind it. Sloppy. A competent 4th former could do better.
It’s what we have to work with, but it’s a pity.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
lofty, I presume you mean this bit of your earlier post: “…tell me the reason you & your watermelon mates kept bradford & locke under wraps during the election campaign.”
The answer is that they didn’t
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20017
Vote:http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20152
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20160
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20169
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20175
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20179
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20190
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20243
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20283
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20288
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20316
June 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
lofty, the answer is that Bradford and Locke were very much out and about during the election campaign. I attempted to link to a large number of media releases that made over the campaign to make the point, but my comment must have gone into moderation because of too many links.
So go to http://www.greens.org.nz/news/all?page=10&sort=desc&order=Created and work your way back from the election date and you’ll see all the media work all the Green MPs did during that period.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Toad, I appreciate the effort, but press releases do not a public persona make.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The greenies demonstrated their focus on Public Image Ltd by not voting in Bradford as co-leader. The greenies might be naive, but they’re not that naive….
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Clearly we need a further $9 million referendum with a multiple-choice question to decide which wording to use.
Only then could we “democratically” decide what questions to ask ourselves …
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Just a bit of common sense & consultation upfront would do the trick. This IS an important debate, why should we be satisfied with such mediocrity in the question we have to answer? Did the writer come through the NCEA system do you think? Heard of Plain English do you think?
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
The real problem is that due to the dumbing down of our education system over the past 30 years many citizens can no longer comprehend the English language.
There is nothing wormg with the question is you have the reading and comprehension skills.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Don’t forget they were hoping to get it in with the general election to influence its outcome. They wanted emotive language. A National win made reinstating S59 possible, while a Labour win would more or less rule it out. If they’d known it wouldn’t be there and that National would win anyway, they might have gone with a different question – one that would put National in a position where they have to address it.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I am a victim of the new Zealand edukation system Please help me
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
yes there is, it can be read more than one way (arguably more accurately, it refers to correcting parents with a smack) and it is a leading question – it even implies that not to smack makes you a bad parent.
Yes,you can read between the lines & comprehend what it means… except that these threads on Kiwiblog demonstrate that people ARE reading it differently (not just referring to my deliberate turning it on its head).
It’s amateurish. Embarrassing even. Nonsense.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
So they deliberately crafted an ambiguous & loaded question, that not even the Nats treat seriously. If referenda were life threatening, these guys could win a Darwin award.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Too many clauses, leading language – “good”, a highly ambiguous centre “good parental correction” and even the last part “criminal offense” has multiple meanings – perhaps they would like it to be a civil offense?
Thank god the referendum is not becoming law, even if the government takes direction from it. With that level of clarity, it would be a lawyers dream.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Vote:
June 19th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
llew the ANTIS are on to take a bath and so they are looking for any excuse
Just like Jimbo Anderton did in 1999 when he told 92% of us that we didnt understand the question.
Like I have said countless times
Every citizen should be subject to an IQ test and a political knowldege test before being allowed to vote
To not do so is to have the dumb and the uninformed having a say in matters that they neither understand nor comprehend
End of story
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
in 1999 when he told 92% of us that we didnt understand the question.
In 1999 the referendum asked three different things. Can you tell me whether you are supposed to vote for, or against, a referendum if you agree with one, or two, of the three questions being asked?
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
So mediocre is OK if it suits your cause? won’t the PROS prefer something other that a pyrrhic victory? Wouldn’t a victory with a question that is clear & unambiguous, and relevant, be so much more satisfying?
And yet they come up with something so vague & meaningless, that it allows the ANTIS this wiggle room? that the two main parties both dismiss as not worth their time voting for or against?
Amateurs.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
And when you fail this test, what then gd?
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
That one set the bar so low… you think those following in their steps would have noticed & learned something. No doubt they complain about falling standards elsewhere.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Actually, I have some doubts about this – is it possible that these people thought Labour would get back in? Talk about scared to back themselves (if you’re right).
And if they did, can gd’s IQ test be tested on referendum question writers?
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Just because somthing can be misinterpreted does not mean it will do. I guarantee not one person in the country will accidentally misinterpret it.
I challenge anyone who is opposed to the wording of this referendum to write any 10 word statement which can’t be misinterpreted if someone chooses to deliberately ignore any form of reason or logic (admitedly that is usually a requirement to be green supporter anyway).
There is nothing wrong with this question. The only thing wrong as far as the left is concerned (which unfortunately also appears to include John Key) is that they know the answer to the question is not the one they want.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Things were put in motion for this long before the election. They had to pick a question before they could go through the immense task of getting the signatures. You never know how an election is going to go, so from that perspective, a foolish but emotive referendum question influencing the outcome of the election would be preferable to a well-worded referendum taking place after the election had potentially had been won by Labour.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
We should just look at how the Swiss do it – they have lots of (Binding) referanda and in 4 different languages.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Ryan, I was not party to the wording of the referendum. However, I do not think many people anticipated Clark would not let it go through at election time. There was plenty of time for it to be done. After the first count there were only a relatively few more signatures required. It was clear the required number would be met. Clark cost the taxpayer the extra $9m for political reasons.
I think it would have been a better move to have waited till the Bradford’s Bill had passed and then had one petition instead of two and simply asked, “Do you want Section 59 restored as was before the recent change?”
I can accept that the wording could be slightly confusing and require reading twice. However, with all the adverts from the little orange man not many people will get it wrong. Probably about as many as got off when they should not have with Section 59 – half a dozen at most over 13 years.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Gd, I presume you consider yourself a “pro” as far as this referendum is concerned, does this mean you’re voting “yes”?
Bullitt, if you think that question is unambiguous and fair, are you bright enough to be a Green supporter yourself? And can you craft an argument that doesn’t involve playing the man rather than the ball?
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Murphy would disagree. Also, since we’re (OK, I am) on semantics, doesn’t mean it will do what?
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Look, my only point is that if this is worth doing, like most things it’s worth doing well. This has not been done well & will suffer in credibility because of it. Doesn’t mean that’s fair, but neither is shooting yourself in the foot.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“Far more ambiguous” Mr Farrar?
Good grief. No wonder those of us who don’t feel it necessary to hit their children in a caring and loving way as part of “good parental discipline” find the question far less ambiguous than the other questions which are more ambiguous.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Green MP Sue Bradford is infuriated that both John Key and Phil Goff have told the media that they will not be voting in the forthcoming Citizens’ Initiated Referendum (CIR) dealing with the ‘anti-smacking law’, because, like her, they consider the question being put to the public is silly, ambiguous and renders the CIR exercise pointless and a complete waste of tax-payers’ money. She is incensed that these politicians are not supporting her expensive “Vote Yes” campaign to retain the anti-smacking law she championed and is distressed that their decision not to vote might convince some who intend to support the “Yes” vote, that voting is a complete waste of time.
On the one hand Bradford tells the New Zealand public that the referendum question is so ambiguous and silly that it renders the exercise pointless and on the other hand she craves, indeed pleads with them, to vote “Yes” in support of the legislation she championed. This is blatant hypocrisy. The tragedy is that she doesn’t comprehend that it is. She is even prepared to publicly criticise two gentlemen – Key and Goff – with years of collective experience in managing and disciplining their own children – for exercising their right not to vote in the CIR.
Mr Key and Mr Goff should be commended for taking this incredibly bold and brave stand not to vote as it will assure all New Zealanders that politicians like them really do want to hear the genuine opinions of ordinary New Zealanders on the subject, rather than their own, possibly self-serving ones. This ever-so gracious and noble move on their part to sacrifice their own privilege to exercise a democratic right in deference to that of the general public, is so very laudable (I’m being facetious if you haven’t noticed!). It is reminiscent of the bold and brave actions of great field commanders in time of war – such as Hannibal – who chose to forgo the privileges of rank to eat the maggot-infested food dished out to ordinary soldiers and sleep next to the field latrines with his men.
New Zealanders must grasp that Super Commanders Key and Goff are genuinely and intensely interested in the views of the common folk who sacrifice their lives on a daily basis for the children of this land. That’s why they have not sought to discredit an instrument of democracy – the CIR – just days before it is to be unfurled. It would be unconscionable for such men of such superlative integrity to pour scorn on their country’s flag prior to it being unfurled or after it is flying. That’s why, they have said nothing whatsoever that would denigrate, discredit or demean or call into question an instrument of democracy – the CIR – one they were actually instrumental in setting up…. Yeah right!
Vote:June 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
100
Vote:June 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Come on, the question is amateur, and even if it isn’t misinterpreted, which is impossible, it has no point, for the referendum to have any point it needs to refer to the legislation – ALL OF U, ESPECIALLY THOSE BAGGING MR KEY NEED TO READ GUYON ESPINERS BLOG ON THIS, he explains very adroitly ALL OF THE WEAKNESSES and PROBLEMS with the question and the referendum. READ IT BEFORE YOU FORM THE OPINION JOHN KEY IS HOPELESS, he is actually being rational and intelligent about this!
Vote:June 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Upandcomer, I don’t need to hear commentators view on the wording of this referendum. I have come to a fast decision the moment I read it. There isn’t any ambiguity to the wording that is why I don’t need to read someone else’s opinion. I don’t see any weaknesses only a lot of bullshit evaluating the wording. John Key is using this excuse as a smokescreen to weaken the vote of this referendum and that is why I will not support him because now I don’t trust him. Let’s say if it were law, then don’t you think a jury would know what a light smack would be? I have more confidence in them than police or CYF. The way the law stands now, yes, PERHAPS the police won’t prosecute but a CYF representative will be at your doorstep meaning the state is forced on you. All this because Sue Bradford is incapable of finding the real cause of child abuse?? I have no confidence with a bureaucrat. This referendum will prevent the criminalisation of honest loving parents. Also, police are now commanded by the state to go to schools and inform children that only the state will make their boundaries and not the parents but does the state really care? The news said that there have been 14 child abuse deaths. Looks like they don’t. This law now is Communisim, If you think there is little respect for authority now, just wait in 20 years!!! The referendum is easy to read, I have lived long enough to know that the only ambiguity are caused by the legal system (notice I don’t say justice system).
Vote:June 20th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
jackp,
I don’t think the wording is ambiguous either, but the way it relates to the anti-smacking legislation is.
The way the question is written, if you tick ‘yes’, you are disagreeing that smacking can be a part of good parenting. I can’t help but tick no to the question laid before me, and as will probably most people.
But the argument over the bill when it was tabled in the house wasn’t along these lines, which is what Key/Goff are essentially arguing. If the question had been better phrased to reflect Bradford’s amendment, then there would be less room for them to squirm out of the results.
I prefer the alternative, more ‘neutral’ question
“Should the law allow parents and carers to hit or smack children when they misbehave?”
Vote:June 20th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Ephemera, the law states that smacking is not good parental care yet the referendum is asking if it is. I think it all comes down to “good parental care”. So, yes it does relate very well to anti-smacking legislation. I think it covers all the bases.
Vote:June 20th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
If this referenda is successful it will probably be largely ignored like the previous one. Maybe there should be an act passed that makes successful referenda binding on parliament to implement.
Vote:June 21st, 2009 at 9:36 am
jackp,
The referendum isn’t asking if smacking is good parental care or not.
It asks if smacking *as part of good parental correction* is acceptable. What if one personally doesn’t think smacking is good parental practice, but doesn’t have a problem with it per se, or think it should be made illegal?
Now you and I might agree on this, but many disagree, This is what I mean when I say that politicians have more room to wriggle.
The question needed to be bullet-proof, but it isn’t. This isn’t a reflection on the referendum campaign or anyone voting in it – whoever drafted the question, though, should have had some guidance on the ‘legal semantics’.
Vote:June 21st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Ephemera, I think you can answer your own question. If they don’t think it is good parental care, then they vote yes on the referendum. But some do and we will find out. I look at it differently. This referendum had been in the making for quite a long time and the clerk decided it was good wording or at least didn’t change it. Why all the hoopala now. This is a political smokescreen. Just like Sue Bradford said this law was not intended to stop child abuse after it was passed which tells me she has another agenda. But before, her whole argument was based on child abuse because New Zealand has the highest in the OECD. She wants this referendum to appear to look confusing. Sorry, you can’t convince me.
Vote:June 21st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Frog writes: I think it is arguable that the Clerk of the House of Representatives has acted ultra vires section 10 of the Act in determining the wording. Bradford’s bill would put that [wording] issue beyond doubt
Wrong again Frog/Toad. The words that Bradford has in her bill are as meaningless as “reasonable force”, “hard labour” and “good parental correction”. There are reasons why such wording is accepted and hindsight is a wonderful thing. In hindsight the clerk cost the taxpayer $9m instead of getting into a legal shitfight like what nearly happened in a previous referendum. The Clerk chose the latter. Or alternatively, you could say that you, Frog, and your mates cost the country $9m by not opposing the question when it was publicly notified.
Vote:June 21st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
If Larry Baldock ever rails about falling literacy standards, can we demand out $9m back?
Vote:June 21st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I was listening to Sue Bradford on the radio being interviewed. She gave two different answers in 3 minutes. The announcer was trying to pin her down what her law states. She said that any force on a child is considered abusive and the parent should be prosecuted. The announcer asked what about a light smack, she answered “hypothetically yes”… what does that mean?? The wording on this referendum is clear, Sue Bradford’s doesn’t give a direct answer. She is a waste of taxpayers’ money. John Key will commit political suicide by joining forces with her.
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
jackp,
I don’t believe smacking is good parenting. I firmly believe this, but accept that this is just my personal opinion; I hope I can be respected for this, the same way I will respect any other parent who chooses to raise their children the way they see fit.
I don’t think smacking should be illegal, though. So my question is, how should I vote in the referendum?
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Good point. In a court room, you would have me cornered like in a game a chess. But in the real world you should vote no because your desired results will be the the same. You don’t outlaw smacking and you will find that the bureaucrats won’t invade your home for finding out why you won’t smack your child.
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
jackp,
I am not trying to corner you.
I am stating my position; I don’t agree with smacking as a parental tool, but don’t want to see it illegal, either.
To vote ‘no’ on the referendum, I would need to swallow that ‘good parenting’ part of the question before I even get to the ‘illegal’ part. If the question were simply ‘should spanking be illegal?’, I would vote no easily.
I hope you can see my point of view, and you are aware that we are on the same side. My problem isn’t with the campaign, but the wording of the question.
The question may be self-evident to people who choose to spank and consider themselves good parents, but becomes a bit messy to those who choose not to spank and consider ourselves good parents too.
This referendum shouldn’t be a battle for supremacy over what good parenting is, which is how it seems.
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Also, on reflection, if I did have you cornered in a courtroom by ‘unpacking’ the question, wouldn’t that be reason enough to reconsider the wording of referenda questions in future? They really ought to be simple things which leave no room for differing interpretations.
After all, that’s what this thread is about.
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
“To vote ‘no’ on the referendum, I would need to swallow that ‘good parenting’ part of the question before I even get to the ‘illegal’ part.”
National- as big a bunch of do gooding interfering taxing regulating tyrants as Labour. Led by the politically gormless John Key and his unprincipled advisors, in buying into the left’s campaign to discredit the question and the outcome of the referendum.
Spitting on democracy.
Wake up people.
Our enemy is not Labour or National.
Its government and almost every politician therein.
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
ephemera – Good parenting is an output (well adjusted kids, ready to be constructive members of society), not a collection of inputs (nothing less than 100% certified correct diet, love, attention, care, discipline/guidence methods).
There will be things that you do as part of good parenting that wouldn’t work for my kids and vice versa.
So why get hung up on this? The question as it is phrased doesn’t define good parenting, it just identifies something that shouldn’t be illegal as part of good parenting.
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
@getstaffed
Doesn’t the fact we are having this conversation indicate some ambiguity in the question, or at least some differing interpretations of it?
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
ephemera – yes. And actually I think having different interpretation is the point. There will be lawyers who want Electoral Finance Bill style documents, regarding anything less as insufficiently detailed, while others will struggle with questions like “Does Monday come after Sunday”. So there will be no pleasing everyone.
Interpret the question as you see fit. If you think this wording is inviting aliens for dinner and you don’t like this idea then vote no. If you think that the wording casts you as a bad parent if you don’t use light smacks then vote yes.
Vote:June 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
getstaffed, you make a good point about outputs vs inputs. The question makes better sense to me when I consider it in this way. (In fact, I am angry at myself I didn’t think about the question along these lines from the beginning).
I still stand by my argument that if the question were phrased something like ‘should smacking be illegal?’, it would be much less contentious.
And I still can’t shake the feeling that everyone engaged in this debate is yelling over each other, about something more than just the anti-smacking bill.
Vote:June 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 am
Damn right – grammar & falling literacy standards!
But what the hey, everyone does have some reasonably convergent idea of what it means, we have to make do with that & vote accordingly.
Vote:June 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
the two words, “part of” which can or if you want cannot be added to good parenting. It is truly up to you as a parent. Getstaffed is right. It is what you interpret good parenting to be or “part of” good parenting. If you look at WHY Sue Bradford has written the law dating back 2003, it will make you sick. I won’t get into that.
Vote:June 25th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“Barnardos drop legal threat re ‘Vote No’ CIR You Tube Video dealing with Referenda Questions”
A stunning satirical video posted on the YouTube website that lampoons the arrogant, ‘professional’ “we know best” “YesVote” child ‘experts’, who hate the thought of the majority of NZ parents voting “NO!!” to Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law in the forthcoming CIR, has got up the noses of Barnardos officials. They formally contacted the author and star of the video, a Mr Renton Maclachlan from Porirua, who interviews a fictitious Mr Dennis Morris-Traveler – spokesperson for the Vote Yes lobby group… Barnardos demanded that he immediately remove his offending video from YouTube. They also contacted YouTube directly to try and get the video removed.
They followed the initial contact with a lawyer’s letter threatening legal action. The Barnardo’s lawyer said to Maclachlan that her clients’ rights were violated by him purporting to be an employee of Barnardos, to officially speak for it and represent its view. Maclachlan sought legal advice and after an exchange of letters, Barnardos decided to proceed no further.
The YouTube Title and Description for the video are as follows:
“NZ Correction Referendum: Vote Yes? No! SATIRE”
“BEWARE. WARNING. SATIRE. COMEDY. Renton Maclachlan conducts an in-depth, enlightening, and entertaining interview with Dennis Morris-Traveler of Baanaadoze and spokesperson for the Yes Vote campaign… ”
See at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrwuBxc5w8
For those with a more serious frame of mind wanting concise information explaining why they should vote “No” (and NOT “Yes”) in the forthcoming Citizen’s Initiated Referendum (CIR) … view Maclachlan’s other videos on YouTube.
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘What it says!’ – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59
“Renton Maclachlan brings a brief, clear, unemotional, analysis for Kiwis of Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-correction law’. See it for yourself and find out what it means! Be confused no more! And vote ‘NO!’ in the referendum in August!’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiYobjbeO4
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘Why correction is needed.’
Vote:‘Renton Maclachlan brings a clear and concise, fast paced, in your face yet unemotional, analysis of the worldviews behind both the old and the new Section 59s.’
http://www…youtube.com/watch?v=HsnT8ul2f28