Kiwiblog

The NZ Herald wants the MMP referenda held earlier:

There appears to be no reason the final referendum could not have been held a year or so after the 2011 general election if the first found a majority wanting change. A new system, if favoured in the decisive vote, could then be used in the 2014 election, rather than waiting as long as 2017.

I disagree. The first referendum is likely to have a low turnout, if not held in conjunction with an election. We found this out in 1992.

I do think there is an argument for the second referendum (if needed) to be held before 2014.  As that will be a simple referendum that will change the electoral system if change is voted for (the earlier referendum is only about if there is a second referendum, and what that is), I think that would achieve a very high turnout even if held separate to an election.

Also, without an election at the same time, the public would be more turned into the pros and cons of the two choices. A change of electoral system si so important, that it almost deserves to have its own debate, not cluttered up with a general election.

So my growing preference is the first referendum in 2011, with the election (to maximise turnout), but have the second referendum in 2012.

If the 2012 referendum votes for change, I am not sure one could implement it in time for the 2014 election, due to boundary changes. But one way you could deal with that is to have the Boundaries Commission (which should start work in late 2011) to prepare boundaries for both options, which would allow them to be finalised in 2013.

The Dominion Post compares Kiwirail to Fawlty Towers:

Kiwirail is to the transport industry what Basil Fawlty is to the hospitality trade.

It treats its customers as impediments to the smooth running of its business.

Current management can be excused responsibility for the creaking trains and dilapidated tracks in the Wellington region.

They are the consequence of 40 years of neglect by public and private owners of the rail system. But KiwiRail bosses cannot escape responsibility for the way customers are treated.

If they are not left waiting on the platform for services that have been cancelled, they are shut in trains that have mysteriously stopped part way into their journeys. Either way, they are kept in the dark.

Who would have thought a subsidised monopoly would give bad service?

The Press examines the electoral finance reforms:

The Government’s proposed new electoral finance system is a mixed bag.

Compared to the Labour’s now repealed Electoral Finance Act, which was a knee-jerk reaction to the covert 2005 Exclusive Brethren advertising, it gives greater freedom for lobby groups to conduct parallel campaigns.

But the new regime has swung too far towards a laissez-faire approach and does create the danger that money could play too great a role in New Zealand politics.

The most unwelcome feature of the new regime would be the absence of advertising spending limits for lobbyists, who are technically but confusingly known as third parties. The preceding legislation imposed a cap of $120,000.

Although few lobbyists came close to this limit in the 2008 election, the lack of a cap might tempt interest groups from across the political spectrum to spend up large in an effort to influence future campaigns. It is also inconsistent with the position of political parties which do have a spending limit. …

But it is also important for voters to know how much lobbyists have spent. In this respect the registration requirement provides only partial transparency, as lobby groups will not have to submit returns on their advertising expenditure.

I don’t have a problem with those who register, disclosing their total spend. That can be something the Select Committee looks at. I prefer transparency to restrictions.

But the Government decided not to amend the taxpayer funded broadcasting allocation system for political parties. Worth further thought is allowing parties to spend their allocations on advertising in newspapers, not just in the broadcast media.

Sadly Labour and the Greens opposed reform of the broadcasting allocation.

The ODT reflects on Michael Swann:

Last week, the people of Otago were served a timely reminder of white collar crime with the sentencing on additional charges of convicted fraud Michael Swann in the High Court at Dunedin.

It will be recalled that Swann was sentenced last year to a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for defrauding the Otago District Health Board of almost $17 million between 2000 and 2006.

On Friday, he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment – concurrent with his present term, meaning that he will in fact serve no extra time behind bars – for accepting $755,000 in bribes from long-time friend and business associate Robin Sew Hoy.

Makes you wonder the point of the additional prosecution!

Simon Power has also announced details of the MMP referenda.

1. Referendum in 2011 will ask whether they wish to retain the present MMP voting system.
2. A second question will ask what alternative voting system they would prefer from FPP, PV, SM and STV, regardless of how they voted in the first question.
3. If people vote not to retain MMP in 2011, then a run-off referendum in 2014 will be held between MMP and the preferred alternative.
4. If people vote to retain MMP, the Electoral Commission will be asked to review our MMP system and recommend desirable changes.

Two issues I think the select committee should consider:

1. Should the second question on alternate voting systems be a preferential vote? I think it would be better if it was, ensuring that the most widely supported option runs off against MMP.
2. Can the 2014 date for the second referendum be held earlier? I initially had the view it must be with the 2014 election, as that ensures a high turnout. However upon reflection I think the second referendum will get a very high turnout even if not at the same time as an election.

The Herald reports:

Between 4000 and 5000 people marched through central Auckland this afternoon, urging the Government to act on referenda.

That can only be called a very disappointing turnout for the organisers, considering the target was 50,000 and the amount spent was $300,000 to $450,000 on promoting it.

Maybe they would have done better if they had followed the Manners Mall campaigners and just hired students through Student Job Search

Protesters also waved placards aimed at the Prime Minister, some reading “JK listen to me” and “JFK, John Fuhrer Key”.

Rather early to be comparing John to Hitler I would say.

Other slogans included “Brian smacks his 700 sons” and “Hit me baby one more time”.

Heh now that is funny.

Singer Yulia said her childhood under a totalitarian regime in Russia made her appreciate the freedom a democracy offered.

“I love democracy and I want it to stay,” she said.

I don’t think there are plans to abolish it until after the Reichstag gets burnt down!

Simon Power has announced the process for referenda on the electoral system, and I am very pleased with the final process.

I blogged a few weeks ago that I was very concern that there seemed to be some talk of having people vote only once on retaining MMP, without knowing the alternative. But the Government has announced, well basically, exactly what I advocated (which I am sure is merely because it really is the common sense way to do it).

The process is:

1. Parliament passes a law enabling a first referendum to be held in conjunction with 2011 election
2. The first referendum will have two questions – the first question being do you want to continue with MMP or have an alternative system
3. The second question will be to select your preferred alternative – the options are likely to be STV, FPP, PV and SM
4. If the first question is a vote to retain MMP, the second question is academic and that is the end of it.
5. If the first question votes for change, then a second referendum will be held giving people a binary choice between MMP and the preferred alternative (the highest ranking option from the second question)
6. The second referendum will be held at the 2014 election
7. Enabling legislation for an electoral system based on the alternate electoral system will be passed prior to the 2014 election, and it will automatically come into force if the alternative system wins
8. The 2017 election would be run under the new electoral system, if there is a change

As I said, it is really good to see there is a fair process – basically a mirror of the 1992/93 referenda.

I find it interesting that in my unscientific blog poll, 47% back MMP, 23% STV, and only 20% FPP. Personally I think it is highly unlikely that we would vote to return to FPP.

A run off between STV and MMP could be interesting as they are both proportional electoral systems, but operate very very differently.

I’m not sure what is being considered by Cabinet, but they need to be very careful with the MMP referenda, so that people are voting on a sensible option.

There has been some suggestion previously that an initial question will be whether or not to keep MMP, and if people vote not to keep MMP, then the next question will be what is the replacement system – and MMP will not be given as an option against the replacement system – the preferred replacement system will just become law.

That would be quite simply the wrong way to do it. The current electoral system should ultimately be put to a vote against a known replacement electoral system, so people can make an intelligent choice on the pros and cons of both. You can not ditch MMP solely on the basis of an initial vote indicating dissatisfaction- because any of the alternatives may prove more dissatisfactory.

It was Churchill who once said democracy is the worst form of Government – apart from all the others that have been tried!

There is no need to spend a lot of time working out what are the appropriate questions, as it was done very well in 1992 and 1993, so I just advocate repeating that process.

The first referenda should be a two parter, and run in 2011 to maximise turnout. The questions would be.

1. Do you wish to retain the present Mixed Member Proportional system or do vote for a change to the voting system.
   
2. Please choose your preferred option to run off against MMP:
   A The Supplementary Member System (SM)
   B The Single Transferable Vote System (STV)
   C The First Past the Post System (FPP)
   D The Preferential Voting System (PV)

If a majority vote for change in Q1, then the most popular option in Q2 goes to a run off against MMP, so people are making an informed choice between the status quo and an alternative.

The second referendum would be held preferably in 2014, to again maximise turnout. That would give Parliament lots of time to devise an electoral act based on the alternative system selected. Then in 2014, if people vote for the alternative system ahead of MMP, the alternative electoral act automatically comes into force.

The Press reports:

Smacking referendum campaigner Larry Baldock wants a referendum, to run in conjunction with elections in 2011, on whether the results of referendums seeking repeal or amendment of any law should be binding.

The Kiwi Party leader and a leading organiser of the smacking referendum said the refusal of Prime Minister John Key to act on the result of that referendum raised questions about the abuse of executive power.

While I wish to see the law amended, and believe most of the public do also, the referendum was not a vote on repealing the anti-smacking law.

I, for one, would not vote in favour of repeal and returning to the old law.

I certainly would vote for amending the law, as outlined in the Borrows amendments in the Boscawen bill.

But the referendum did not specify that the law be repealed or amended. For Baldock’s proposal to work, the referendum would have to explicitly (instead of implicitly) state what law is to be repealed.

If we did have binding referenda, I’d be tempted to start one to get rid of the archaic criminal offence of blasphemous libel. Blasphemy should not be a crime – it should purely be an issue between a person and their church.

• Enrolled Voters: 3,002,068
• Votes Cast: 1,684,402 (56.1% of enrolled)
• Invalid Votes: 1,685 (0.1% of enrolled) – unreadable etc
• Valid Votes: 1,682,717
• Informal Votes: 10,421 (0.6% of valid votes) – no indication of vote
• Yes Votes: 201,541 (12.0% of valid votes)
• No Votes: 1,470,755 (87.4% of valid votes)

Incidentally I have run the results through my margin of error calculator as it it were a poll. If one assumes those who did not vote would vote the same as those who did vote, then the margin of error for the no vote was +/- 0.022%.

The Election Results Website usefully now has a useful excel spreadsheet of the votes per electorate.

Lowest Turnout

1. Tāmaki Makaurau 34.2%
2. Hauraki-Waikato 34.4%
3. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti 36.1%
4. Waiariki 36.6%
5. Te Tai Hauāuru 37.4%

Highest Turnout

1. Bay of Plenty 66.8%
2. Coromandel 66.2%
3. Rodney 66.1%
4. Waitaki 65.9%
5. Selwyn 65.2%

Highest Informal Votes

1. Wellington Central 2.02%
2. Rongotai 1.23%
3. Ohariu 1.15%
4. Dunedin North 1.12%
5. Auckland Central 1.10%

Highest Yes Votes

1. Wellington Central 36.0%
2. Rongotai 29.3%
3. Auckland Central 29.2%
4. Mt Albert 23.1%
5. Ohariu 19.9%

Highest No Votes

1. Waikato 92.54%
2. Taranaki-King Country 92.41%
3. Clutha-Southland 92.39%
4. Hunua 92.38%
5. Taupo 92.30%

John Key announced yesterday three initiatives in response to the referendum. Taking each in turn:

The Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive lead a review of Police and Child, Youth & Family policies and procedures, including the referral process between the two agencies, to identify any changes that are necessary or desirable to ensure good parents are treated as Parliament intended.  The Commissioner of Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive will seek an independent person to assist in the conduct of the review and will report back by 1 December 2009.

I think this is useful and desirable. I’d guess that more parents are worried about over-zealous action by CYFS, than they are about actually being prosecuted and convicted for a light smack.

Bring forward the delivery of the report from the Ministry of Social Development chief executive on data and trends and the effect of the law change from the end of the year to late September/early October. The Minister of Social Development will table the report in the House.

As MSD are doing the review, I will be amazed if it amounts to much. But yes useful to have it done earlier.

Invite Police to continue to report on a six-monthly or annual basis for the next three years on the operation of the law, and invite Police to include data on cases where parents or caregivers say the force used on the child was reasonable in the circumstances.

This is useful, as it may lead to a situation where a conclusion can be reached on whether the law is working or not. Now that I think that is the correct test, but it is the test laid down by the PM.

“Cabinet has agreed that if future Police data indicates a worrying trend, the law will be changed to ensure that good New Zealand parents are not criminalised for lightly smacking,” says Mr Key.

I regard “criminalised” as meaning are in breach of the law, not merely that they are not charged or convicted. And the law is very specific that smacking for correctional purposes is absolutely illegal.

The problem we have is that the Government’s test of “Is the law working” is not the test, that many others have. Their test is “Is this a good law”.

So why is the Government, or more specifically the PM, applying the “Is the law working” test? Why doesn’t he just agree to change the law?

Well the simple answer is he does not want to break his word, and that is not a bad thing. Since the compromise the test he promised was “Is the law working” and while I think that is the wrong test, that is what he promised.

So the PM has to balance up keeping his word, with responding to a clear public vote they do not like the law.

If the public are unhappy with no law change, there are a number of ways this could show itself. National could lose support to ACT who want the law changed. This is not a concern to National. Most of the smart people in National want ACT to be higher in the polls than 1%. Losing support to ACT doesn’t change the Government.

It is hard to see Labour picking up support from National on this issue. Labour are still blamed by most for the law, and Labour have little relevance at the moment for most people.

The nightmare scenario is Winston. His caucus had a conscience vote on this issue and Peters voted against. Could Winston use this to campaign in 2011 that National and Labour are the same, and if he gets back in he will force whomever is in Government to scrap the law. In those circumstances Phil Goff would scrap the law to have Winston make him PM.

Colin Espiner blogs on this issue, and he implores John Key to “hold the line”. I suspect Colin’s view is that of almost the entire gallery. I really do wish someone from the gallery could tell me what the problem is with the Borrows amendment. After all Colin says:

I’ve smacked my child, and I don’t want to be prosecuted for it. But I like the law, because it stops child beaters who bash their kids with lengths of hose pipe from getting away with it.

The Borrows amendment would mean Colin is not breaking the law when he smacked his child (assuming it was for correctional purposes) and it would also stop someone hitting their kid with a length of hose pipe.

Is Colin aware that the current law does not explicitly forbid hitting your kid with a length of hose pipe? If done for non-correctional purposes, it may be found to be reasonable force. While the Borrows amendment would rule that out in all circumstances.

It seems to me (and I admit I have a position on this subject) that what most Kiwis are telling the Government is that they don’t want to be told how to discipline their kids.

Yet they are. The Bradford law is explicit. It says you can not use any force at all for correctional purposes. It says you can use undefined reasonable force for good parenting, for preventing disruptive behaviour but not for correction. And that is exactly telling parents how to discipline their kids.

David Beatson blogs at Pundit and concludes:

Third, he should be prepared to consider an amendment to section 59 that might satisfy all parties – one stating clearly that legal parental correction does not include the use of force that results in a child suffering any form of physical injury or sustained distress.

That is basically the Borrows amendment. But despite it giving children greater protection in most areas, it is not acceptable to the 12%. You can not get a compromise that everyone will accept – there is too much gulf between the 88% and the 12%.

1. 1,420,959 – No to correctional smacking as a criminal offence
2. 1,053,398 – 2008 Vote for National
3. 935,319 – 2005 Vote for Labour
4. 838,219 – 2002 Vote for Labour
5. 800,199 – 1999 Vote for Labour
6. 701,315 – 1996 Vote for National

The Herald reports:

Options for changing New Zealand’s approach to smacking children will go to the Cabinet on Monday after New Zealanders voted by 88 per cent that a smack should not be a criminal offence.

Well it is good to see that the voices of 1.4 million New Zealanders won’t just be ignored.

It was muffled by a low turnout of 54 per cent, including 0.3 per cent who spoiled their votes, so even the huge “no” vote fell just short of half of the enrolled electors.

That is not a low turnout for a referendum not held with an election. The referendum that chose MMP for the run-off with FPP had only a 55% turnout. So it was only 1% less than the choice of electoral system.

Prime Minister John Key said in Australia – where he is on an official visit – that voters had said strongly that “they don’t want good parents to be criminalised for a light smack”.

Yes, but that is not just saying they do not want to be prosecuted and convicted. It is saying they do not want it to be a criminal offence.

His own view was that the law was “working as it is now”.

But on Monday, he would take to the Cabinet “options which fall short of changing the law but will provide comfort for parents about this issue”.

There will be a lot of interest in these. However I believe that the law should be changed. The reason is quite simple.

The criminal code is there to reflect the views of the public on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. And almost every provision in the criminal code would have 99% of adult New Zealanders say this should be a criminal offence. 99% say it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to rape, it is wrong to beat someone senseless, it is wrong to steal etc etc.

But here we have 88% of adult New Zealanders (who voted) saying this should not be a criminal offence. If Parliament does not heed the views of voters on this issue, then we have an awful precedent where Parliament is sits as rulers rather than servants of the people, imposing their private criminal code, rather than society’s.

I’m not an advocate that Parliament in every circumstance should do what public opinion wants. The referendum on the number of firefighters was a classic case. Economic issues can be similiar as the public can vote for cutting taxes and increasing spending without the responsibility of having to balance the budget.

But when it comes to our criminal code, I find it hard to offer up a reason why Parliament would insist on criminalising something that not only lacks majority support for being a criminal act, but in fact has massive and sustained opposition.

The public understand this issue. Hell, it has been debated for two to three years. They know exactly what they voted for. The percentage who spoilt their ballot papers was a miniscule 0.3%.

There is a simple solution to all of this. The Borrows/Boscawen amendment/bill. It will in fact provide greater protection to children (as it significantly lowers the level of acceptable force for non-correctional situations) but remove the insulting differentiation between smacking for preventing disruption and for correction.

The interim results are:

1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a referendum not held with a general election.

87.6% voted no and 11.8% vote yes.

A massive victory for common sense.

As a proportion of total enrolled adults, 47% voted no, 46% did not vote and only 7% voted yes.

Detailed results are here.

The three electorates with the lowest no votes are:

1. Wellington Central 62.1%
2. Rongotai 69.6%
3. Auckland Central 70.1%

I think it shows how different opinion is within those enclaves, compared to most of the country. Having said that even WC almost had 2:1 voting no.

The electorates with the highest no votes (all 92.6%) are:

1. Waikato
2. Clutha-Southland
3. Hunua
4. Taranaki – King Country

The number of electorates who in each band for the no vote are:

1. 60% – 65% 1
2. 65% – 70% 1
3. 70% – 75% 1
4. 75% – 80% 3
5. 80% – 85% 13
6. 85% – 90% 22
7. 90% – 95% 29

The turnout range varied from 32.8% in Tamaki Makaurau to 65.1% in Bay of Plenty.

John Roughan’s column on the smacking referendum is one I have to respond to:

There is something very creepy about this smacking referendum now arriving in the mail. What exactly do the citizens behind this initiative, men like Bob McCoskrie, mean by “good parental correction”?

Well for me it is being able to legally give your child a light smack on the hand or behind if they misbehave. Something probably 90% of parents have done – s0 how is that creepy?

Their publicity pretends they mean nothing more than the smack that an anxious or annoyed parent might use to stop or prevent dangerous or offensive behaviour. But that can’t be all they want because the law now expressly permits the use of parental force for exactly those purposes.

To prevent disruptive behaviour yes, but not to correct it. And that distinction is silly personally.

To cite one example. If you have told your child not to touch something, then it is legal to give them a smack on the hand if you are quick enough to do it as they try to touch it. That is preventing disruptive behaviour.

But if they have been fast enough to do it, it is illegal to them smack them on the hand a few second later as correction.

Delayed, systematic parental correction is the old-fashioned hiding. It was often called a “good hiding”.

That is what the recent amendment to the Crimes Act has criminalised. That, I suspect, is the “good parental correction” we are being asked to endorse in this referendum.

This is such a red herring. Almost everyone I know who does not like the current law, says they think the Borrows amendment would be a good outcome, rather than go back to the old law. The Borrows amendment would define “reasonable force” massively below a “good hiding”. It would exclude any use of an implement, anything that causes bruising, in fact anything where the effect is beyond trifling and transitory. And it would allow it for correctional purposes, as well as the other stuff such as preventing disruption etc.

Here is what many people do not know. The current law does not define what is reasonable for the purposes of preventing disruption. It does not rule out a whack in the head. If your child is screaming abuse at you, you could punch them to the ground and potentially claim that was reasonable force to prevent or stop the disruption. You could hit them with an implement and argue reasonable force.

You see the Bradford law did not change the definition of reasonable force from the old law – despite all the horror stories told. All it did was say you can no longer use reasonable force for correction, but can for preventing disruptive behaviour etc.

The Borrows amendment would provide far greater safeguard, as it would set the definition of reasonable force as low as possible and apply it to all situations.

Those who initiated the referendum know what the new law says. They know it permits reasonable force for all the preventive situations they are fond of citing.

They pretend it does not because they could not attract majority support for the restoration of the right to flog children. Don’t be deceived by them. Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Absolutely.

I think it is sad when invents motives for those you disagree with, rather than rationally debate the issue.

My challenge to John R would be to look closely at the Borrows amendment and then explain how this would be inferior to the current law.

For those in or near Epsom,Rodney Hide is having a public forum at 5.30 pm on Friday 24 July. The guest speaker is Bob McCoskrie on why you should vote No in the referendum.

It is at the Mecca Cafe, corner of Nuffield Street and Remuera Road, Newmarket. A cash bar will operate.

We all had fun using the referendum question generator to create parodies.

Now what people may not be aware is the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre filed a takedown notice against the site allowing you to create a parody, as Orange Man is their intellectual property.

New Zealand doesn’t have a specific exemption for parody and satire, so if they had proceeded, the site could have been forced to close.

Most people would agree the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre should of course be able to take action if a person is using Orange Man to impersonate the Commission Enrolment Centre , or make people think it is a real notice on behalf of the electoral agencies. But most people can work out that a question such as “Should gingas be exterminated by 2011″ is not a real referendum.

Thankfully a compromise has been reached, where in return for explicit reference of the crown copyright, I understand the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre has withdrawn its objections (which is good of them).

It does highlight though the need for good intellectual property law that both rewards the owner of intellectual property, but also protects fair use and free speech by allowing satire and parody.

Hat Tip: No Right Turn

A site has been established allowing people to design their own referenda questions. The intent is to mock the upcoming referenda – they overlook the minor fact of course over 300,000 signed a petition to trigger the upcoming referenda – something managed only four times in a dozen years, despite scores of attempts.

Anyway here are my questions:

Or should we use the term culled?

Hopefully everyone agrees on that one.

The accent does it for me everytime!

Leftie Brian Rudman does not seem too happy with Labour on the Auckland Council:

Every time I hear someone advocating a referendum I cringe. Surely the $9 million anti-smacking charade is evidence enough that asking the great unwashed to say yes or no to a complex, many-faceted conundrum is a dumb way to go.

In recent weeks we’ve had Labour leader Phil Goff demanding a referendum on the Auckland Super City, and now Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford, is introducing legislation requiring a referendum before any publicly owned community assets are sold. But, oddly, only when Auckland assets are at risk.

Yes Labour should have the courage of their convictions and try and implement that policy for all of New Zealand. They would have an uprising from local bodies telling them to naff off.

“Aucklanders are worried,” explains Mr Twyford, “that assets such as water, transport and many others, which ratepayers have built up over generations, are now under threat from the Government’s changes to Auckland governance.”

Perhaps I’ve been snoozing of late, but the only Aucklanders I’m aware of who worry themselves to sleep about such things are professionals hand-wringers like intrepid water rights campaigner Penny Bright and a few old-style lefties who keep Roger Douglas voodoo dolls on their mantelpieces to remind them of the bad old days.

Indeed. But let us follow Labour’s logic here. They say a decision to sell an asset is so monumental there must be a public referendum on that. Well if we accept that logic, then you should also demand that the purchase of any major asset be illegal unless the public get to vote on it through a referendum. It is illogical to require public consent only for sales, and not for purchases.

I’d almost be tempted to vote for a bill that required consent both ways. The public I am sure would shoot down some of the more daft spending proposals by Council. I suspect Mr Twyford is less keen though on letting the public have a say in purchase or construction of assets.

Referendums are expensive, and easily manipulated. In his Super City poll, what question is Mr Goff proposing? How do you decide such crucial details as the powers of the local boards by referendum? The issue of asset sales is slightly more complicated than a simple yes or no.

Back in 2007, I saw nothing wrong with selling Auckland City’s 12.75 per cent of airport shares, as long as the cash was spent on new infrastructure, something like the restoration of the St James Theatre, or repairs to the Aotea underground carpark. But I backed full public ownership of the port because I saw that as a way of ensuring future waterfront developments would be done for the good of all Aucklanders.

It’s impossible to reflect these kinds of nuances in a referendum. What we need to concentrate on is creating a truly democratic, ward-based model of governance, in which every Aucklander feels represented. That way the perception that referendums were a good thing would fade away.

The referendum bill is basically scare mongering. Labour are deeply disappointed that the Government isn’t selling lots of assets (as am I but for different reasons), so they are trying to make people think it is just around the corner.

NZPA reports:

The 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.

Unlike John Key and Phil Goff, I will not be abstaining. I will be voting No. There are several reasons I will be doing so.

1. First of all, I have consistently supported the Borrows amendment as a highly sensible compromise. I do not support a return to the old law, and if it was a choice between the old law and the current law, I would stick with the current law. But the Borrows amendment explicitly excludes force as being reasonable if “it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used”.
2. I also support the Borrows amendment as it actually gives more protection to children in non-correctional situations. For example parents under Bradford’s law can use an undefined level of reasonable force in situations to prevent disruptive behaviour. Yes we have a law that says you can not smack for correctional purposes but can use an undefined level of reasonable force to prevent a child from continuing in disruptive behaviour. Do you want to argue the difference with the Police?
3. I don’t agree that the law is working well. It depends how you define well. If you look at criminal convictions only, I agree there have not been any convictions that are unreasonable. But I don’t think that is the only measure. I never expected scores of parents would be sent to jail for smacking their kids, just as I never expected scores of people jailed for breaching the Electoral Finance Act. That doesn’t mean it is good law though. The current law is confusing, parents do not understand it, and many absolutely fine parents have had to go through unnecessary Police or CYFS investigations.
4. I have a belief that the state should not intervene in how parents raise their children, unless there is clear harm to the children. Parenting is an exceptionally challenging and complex duty, and most parents excel at it without the state telling them how to correct their children’s behaviour. The tragedy is the the state often fails miserably at intervening with horrendous cases of child abuse, yet does intervene when a parent lightly smacks their child. A light smack is not child abuse. It is not assault. Good God it was only 20 years ago that most schools had corporal punishment.
5. Supporting the Borrows amendment is not the same as supporting smacking as a preferred correctional device. It is about not having the law declare parents criminals if they do a light smack for correctional purposes.
6. The wording of the referendum, while not perfect, is more than clear enough. the current law makes any form of correctional smacking a criminal offence – whether part of good, bad or neutral parenting. If you think smacking is automatically bad parenting then vote yes as Sue Bradford will do. If you think that there are situations where a parent should be able to lightly smack for correctional purposes without breaking the law then vote no.

Finally if you are unhappy with the $9 million cost of the referendum, remember that the former Labour Government refused to schedule it at the time of the general election, which would have saved millions.

If the No Vote clearly wins, and there is a significant turnout (say over 50%), then John Key and Phil Goff should support the Borrows amendment (now a private members bill by John Boscawen) as a sensible compromise.

Labour still has no policy on what it wants for Auckland. Despite setting up the Royal Commission, they are now al over the place in terms of any coherent vision for the future.

Can anyone tell me their position on Maori seats?

Can anyone tell me their position on local Councils vs community boards?  They initially said they did not support local Councils as they were too large, but then complained when the Government listened and got rid of them.

Can anyone tell me whether or not they supported the unchanged recommendations of the Royal Commission?

No you can’t, as they have no policy apart from wanting no at large seats, as that will make it easier for them to gain power over the city.

But now in a fit of stupidity, Goff is calling for a referendum on the changes. Before I detail how unworkable this is, let’s hear what the Royal Commission itself said:

31.4 Nor does the Commission consider that a reorganisation proposal would be an appropriate mechanism for implementing the proposed reforms, despite the superficial attraction of using an existing statutory mechanism.1 The reorganisation process requires the review of any reorganisation proposal by the Local Government Commission, followed by consultation with stakeholders, the notification of a draft proposal, and public submissions. It also requires a poll of electors which, by simple majority, determines whether or not the proposal will proceed. Plainly, the complex and wide-ranging recommendations in this Report are not suited to this process;

So the Royal Commission itself said a referendum is only superficially attractive and is plainly unsuited to complex and wide-ranging recommendations.

The Royal Commission was of course right on this point. Referendums are suitable for simple singular propositions, such as changing the term of Parliament from three to four years.

The reform proposals have dozens of elements to them – one Council, an executive Mayor, local boards, composition of Council, powers of Council, powers of Board, ward boundaries, etc etc etc. What would people be voting on?

And is Goff really saying that he wants it to be a choice between doing nothing and the Government’s proposals? That there should be a poll, and if it fails then the status quo endures and all the work of the Royal Commission is wasted? Because a referendum is not something that allows you to modify a proposal, like a select committee process. It is a stop or go process.You don’t like the bathwater and indeed the baby goes out the window also.

Also consider the further practicalities of a referendum? What do you do if voters in six Councils vote yes, and one Council votes no? Do you then have a new Auckland Council with a big hole in the middle of it? Do you give veto power to the voters of the smallest Council that represents around 2% of the Region?

And let us remember the hypocrisy. Goff attacks the Government for changing some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet himself now demands the Government ignore one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission – that the reform is far too complex for a referendum.