Posts by dave crampton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Gosh the council really stuffed up, as I predicted they would. How on earth do you change the law with a court injunction (after passing a bylaw that has no teeth then demand the police enforce it - enforce what? ) -- which is effectively what they were trying to do. Instead they have given publicity to the very thing they wanted stopped.
-
You shouldn't walk into the polling booth (or... postal ballot whatever) and think "umm. What the hell does that mean in reality?"
Well if that was a condition of voting we may as well not have elections....
-
That would be to assume I regarded the removal of the Section 59 defence as "poor legislation".
No it doesn't, given the removal of the defence is only part of the legislation, and the removal of the defence is not even the purpose of the legislation, it is its effect ( as clearly stated in that legislation, BTW).
So, how <i>do </i>you regard the legislation , in terms of its purpose and effect: excellent, very good , good, fair, or poor?
-
.. and although you like to attack poor referendum questions, you`re not in such a hurry to attack the poor legislation that led to these questions?
-
The referendum is not a vote on the law passed by Parliament removing the Section 59 defence for striking a child.
It is, in fact, another work of weasel words apparently aimed more at sentiment than a useful conclusion.It's neither. Its one person exercising her democratic right backed up by many others.And apparently you don't like that kind of exercise of democratic rights because your view of democracy appears to be based on the subject matter - and that's a pretty warped view to have IMNSHO.
-
It is worth bearing in mind that the one election in which there was also a CIR ballot was a shambles in which the votes took far too long to be counted and everybody complained.
Its worth bearing n mind that the Chief Electoral Office didn't organise it properly. Its worth bearing in mind that the Government is responsible for funding the Chief Electoral Office, and its worth remembering that the Chief Electoral Officer recommended a postal ballot in MARCH was because he didn't want to do an electoral referendum because he thought it would be too much hard work.
In other words, he couldn't be arsed even asking for funding to work a little harder. Parekura Horomia all over again.
Parliament could, if it so chooses, vote on a resolution requiring the voting period for a postal ballot to close on Election Day.
-
I/S: If it was impractical I would accept that. Of course.But it is about as impractical as organising an election. And its not my crusade. I didn't even sign the damn thing.. perhaps I wasn't at the right beaches or parks...
But, yes, CIRs are rare. About as rare as straight answers from Electoral Authorities.
And as someone who holds strong and similiar views on democracy as I do, I'm not sure why you`re so reticent in going into bat for democracy....
-
Gareth what a stupid thing to say given that the same people will be making the decision. In terms of of democracy, we have a right to have a referendum should the petition be valid. IMHO that date should be soon as practically possible. Common sense - not Labours law of common sense, though- would lean to wards an election referendum.
Parliament should pass a resolution to have it on election day as that appears to be what the people want.The government does not have a right or an obligation to act on the result. Your question would be more valid with your preferred answer if CIRs were binding.
Referendums are effectively not for fun or change per se, they are to send a message hoping for change. If there is no change, at least Baldock and Co have had the opportunity to exercise their democratic right.
-
Which is more important: the date of the referendum, or Parliament's response to the referendum?
The date, for democratic reasons. Parliament is able to respond how it chooses irrespective of the date or result of that referendum.
-
Kiwi Party Leader and CIR Petition organiser Larry Baldock said he was outraged at the Prime Ministers arrogance in declaring in Parliament today that the referendum on the Anti-smacking law would not be held until 2009.
"Hiding behind Ministry of Justice advice is cowardly. She should tell the truth and admit that it is her intention to do all she can to avoid this referendum at the election for her own political reasons," said Mr Baldock.
"No matter what she does this is an election issue that will not go away. I promise all those who put their trust in me as they signed the petition that our voice will not be drowned out!
"The reasons given by the PM in response to John Key's question are ridiculous. In 1999 the voting was delayed due to a referendum being held at the same time. This was because they tried to count the election results and the referendum simultaneously. The review conducted after that election recommended that the problem could be solved by simply counting the referendum after the ballot papers.
"Suggesting there might need to be more polling booths is incredible. The same number of people will be voting as those completing a simple question on one more piece of paper for the referendum.
Will there be additional costs of handling the referendum at the election? Of course, but they are the necessary and worthy costs of preserving our democracy. Any costs to the taxpayer have really been caused by the 113 MP's that voted for a law that was clearly opposed by 80% of the population, and not by those seeking the referendum.
"If our officials cannot handle this extra organisation then we must conclude that Labour have really stuffed this country up in the last 9 years by appointing more incompetent people than we imagined.
"As soon as the Referendum is officially approved by the Clerk of the House I will be calling on the hundreds of thousands who signed the petition and the remaining 1.5 million Kiwis who wanted to have their say in a referendum at this election, to join me in protesting the anti-democratic dictatorial behavior of the Prime Minister and this government by taking to the streets", said the Kiwi Party leader.