PDA

View Full Version : Smacking Referendum - User Pays



Twelvevolts
18-06-2009, 07:16 PM
Ok to get this to where it got to 310,000 people had to sign up to say they wanted this to happen.

Personally I think it is a lame brained waste of money just like all the previous ones, but it would be quite good if 310000 people who signed up for this actually paid the nine million dollars between them. This at least might make them think twice before they pedalled this sort of rubbish.

What is the point anyway? Just like the stupid crime question a few years ago, you ask a heavily loaded and biased question and then whine on for years about how the Government pays no attention to the people.

somebody
18-06-2009, 07:18 PM
If the referendum was included with the last general election (which it should have been, but the government of the day decided not to), then it wouldn't be costing us $9m.

mikebartnz
18-06-2009, 07:50 PM
It is only a waste of money because Labour and National are too arrogant to make referendums binding.
Also Labour didn't want the referendum during the elections because they new it would affect their chances. So blame Labour for it costing $9mill.

MushHead
18-06-2009, 09:44 PM
Twelvevolts, you pretty much summed it up for me.

How people can be so ignorant to vote for such a biased question to be approved for a referendum? The whole thing becomes meaningless when some special interest group gets to choose the wording. Who decided that smacking was part of "good" parenting?

razzarphenix
18-06-2009, 10:02 PM
Ok to get this to where it got to 310,000 people had to sign up to say they wanted this to happen.

Personally I think it is a lame brained waste of money just like all the previous ones, but it would be quite good if 310000 people who signed up for this actually paid the nine million dollars between them. This at least might make them think twice before they pedalled this sort of rubbish.

What is the point anyway? Just like the stupid crime question a few years ago, you ask a heavily loaded and biased question and then whine on for years about how the Government pays no attention to the people.

Each to their own. But lets be honest Labour was hell bent on making sure they didn't get this question in with the election when they knew it should have been they did quite a good job of side-stepping democracy.

I say give Sue Bradford and Labour the bill.

somebody
18-06-2009, 10:22 PM
I say give Sue Bradford and Labour the bill.

Labour will just pass it on to the taxpayer - like they did for flying all those MPs up to Mt Albert to help them campaign.

Sweep
18-06-2009, 10:30 PM
The question is so biased as to defy belief.

Also, regardless of the result it is still a non-binding referendum which means the Govt. does not have to do anything anyway.

What a waste of money.

johcar
18-06-2009, 10:30 PM
It is only a waste of money because Labour and National are too arrogant to make referendums binding.
Also Labour didn't want the referendum during the elections because they new it would affect their chances. So blame Labour for it costing $9mill.

Spot on!

gary67
19-06-2009, 06:55 AM
Yes it is a waste of money but if the bill it relates to had been worded properly instead of confusing the hell out of ordinary Kiwi's then there would be no need for the referendum.

prefect
19-06-2009, 07:37 AM
Just another problem caused by the scum labor party when it was in government.
Its going to take a decade to unwind all their cockups.

ubergeek85
19-06-2009, 11:20 AM
The question isn't just biased, it's plain wrong: I've yet to see any parent taken to court for smacking their child.

What the law does is it removes the 'defence' claim that got alot of people a free pass when they beat their kids.

Two very different things. I think that 310,000 people heard 'anti-smacking' and started running around like headless chooks. I wonder how many of them have fully read the law. I haven't.

I know where my say is going: right in the bin. I refuse to take part in such a pathetic excuse for 'democracy'.

Metla
19-06-2009, 11:38 AM
What the law does is it removes the 'defence' claim that got alot of people a free pass when they beat their kids.



That never happened. No one got a free pass to beat their children, You can claim anything you want in order to defend your actions yet you still need to convince a jury that is what you were doing. The law worked fine in the past.


Sometimes a kid needs a kick up the arse.The real world is meant to be harsh.Beating your kids has always been legal, and those that didn't care about the law then, still don't give a ****. It takes a retard to confuse the two but there are plenty of retards and thats why the old law separated the two.

And if your of the mentality that you can beat kids to death then no law will make any difference.

ubergeek85
19-06-2009, 11:51 AM
****. I dunno why but I said defence. I meant discipline.

Cicero
19-06-2009, 01:59 PM
****. I dunno why but I said defence. I meant discipline.

You may have to be smacked.:blush:

gary67
19-06-2009, 05:26 PM
That guy in Christchurch got prosecuted recently, his word against the off duty cop guess who they believed. I wasn't there so can't comment either way but just to say there has been a case and recently

Twelvevolts
19-06-2009, 10:54 PM
It is only a waste of money because Labour and National are too arrogant to make referendums binding.
.

Well let's hope they stay arrogant for an very long time if this is the quality of the questions people come up with. I'm not sure what party would make it binding, you'd have to be crazy to let laws be made like this. Maybe the Raving Loony Party would take it on?

mikebartnz
20-06-2009, 01:50 AM
Well let's hope they stay arrogant for an very long time if this is the quality of the questions people come up with. I'm not sure what party would make it binding, you'd have to be crazy to let laws be made like this. Maybe the Raving Loony Party would take it on?
Are you going to head the Raving Loony Party.
Personally I don't see the question as being ambiguous at all but feel it is an excuse for the pollies to ignore it. In other words the politicians are full of tuti.

prefect
20-06-2009, 08:30 AM
As much as I would like binding refos you would become unstuck with things like the death penalty.
I am against the dp but I reckon if it went to refo it would be in the 90s for.
The wording of the question is irrelevant, all people arent dumb.

SolMiester
20-06-2009, 09:53 AM
Twelvevolts, you pretty much summed it up for me.

How people can be so ignorant to vote for such a biased question to be approved for a referendum? The whole thing becomes meaningless when some special interest group gets to choose the wording. Who decided that smacking was part of "good" parenting?

Thankfully mushhead, you dont run the country, and there is a huge % that does feel smacking is part of good parenting....may I ask if you are over 20 yrs of age?, I doubt it, and you have probably already been brain washed with this country's PC policies!

prefect
20-06-2009, 12:38 PM
The whole reason the question is worded like that is extremly super mega simple.
The people who got off their arses and organised the petition for a refo and the people who signed it wanted the wording like that.
If people do all the petitioning they should be allowed to word the refo how they like.
People who are against the smacking have no right to question the wording at all they just have the right to say no.
PC liberals in this country are dangerous and I hope the SIS is keeping watch on them.

Twelvevolts
28-06-2009, 05:10 PM
Poll now says 77% now think $8.9m smacking referendum 'a waste of money', and five percent don't know.

Remarkably, eighteen percent still think it is a good use of money. What planet are they on??

Metla
28-06-2009, 05:34 PM
Yes, Its disgusting we are forced into a situation where our money has to be spent to try and fight something that should never have been passed into law in the first place.


Shame on the Labour party.

Its also disgusting that the views of the masses is ignored by the Government, and that it would take their jobs being jeopardised before they would correct the issue.

hell, If they had wanted to tidy up the law and keep everyone happy they could have easily worded it to say your not allowed to bruise,break or mark the skin of a child in the course of discipline.

SORTED.

Erayd
28-06-2009, 06:07 PM
Poll now says 77% now think $8.9m smacking referendum 'a waste of money', and five percent don't know.

Remarkably, eighteen percent still think it is a good use of money. What planet are they on??I would spend $8.9M on it in a heartbeat, simply because to do anything else corrupts the democratic process. When such a high proportion of your voting population demands a referendum, ignoring that demand is simply not an option, regardless of how inane or otherwise you may think the question.

Yes, Labour should have included the question on the ballot forms back in november, which would have made the cost negligible. We all know that they decided to serve their own interests and avoid reminding people about it on election day.

HOWEVER: Now that it's happened, the only choice we're left with is whether to have the referendum, or not. From where I stand, the only morally acceptable choice is to have one.

That is why I support spending $8.9M of our hard-earned cash on it.

Twelvevolts
28-06-2009, 06:42 PM
I would spend $8.9M on it in a heartbeat, simply because to do anything else corrupts the democratic process. When such a high proportion of your voting population demands a referendum, ignoring that demand is simply not an option, regardless of how inane or otherwise you may think the question.

Yes, Labour should have included the question on the ballot forms back in november, which would have made the cost negligible. We all know that they decided to serve their own interests and avoid reminding people about it on election day.

HOWEVER: Now that it's happened, the only choice we're left with is whether to have the referendum, or not. From where I stand, the only morally acceptable choice is to have one.

That is why I support spending $8.9M of our hard-earned cash on it.

I have no objection whatsoever to you spending your hard earned cash on a pointless referendum, but I object to you spending mine. I don't care what the issue is really (albiet given the lack of any obvious problems with the way the law works that just makes things even more wasteful) as all referendum are a waste of money. If you want one, by all means pay for it.

Twelvevolts
28-06-2009, 06:45 PM
Yes, Its disgusting we are forced into a situation where our money has to be spent to try and fight something that should never have been passed into law in the first place.


Shame on the Labour party.

Its also disgusting that the views of the masses is ignored by the Government, and that it would take their jobs being jeopardised before they would correct the issue.

hell, If they had wanted to tidy up the law and keep everyone happy they could have easily worded it to say your not allowed to bruise,break or mark the skin of a child in the course of discipline.

SORTED.

What is wrong with a law that stops people beating kids? That is the practical effect of the law whatever you might be dressing it up as.

the_bogan
28-06-2009, 07:07 PM
What is wrong with a law that stops people beating kids? That is the practical effect of the law whatever you might be dressing it up as.

There's beating, and then there's a smack.

The referendum doesn't mention anything about a beating.

So I should let the kid touch the fire rather than smacking the hand away?

Metla
28-06-2009, 07:26 PM
What is wrong with a law that stops people beating kids? That is the practical effect of the law whatever you might be dressing it up as.

It does no such thing, and only a fool would think it did.

Metla
28-06-2009, 07:30 PM
I have no objection whatsoever to you spending your hard earned cash on a pointless referendum, but I object to you spending mine. I don't care what the issue is really (albiet given the lack of any obvious problems with the way the law works that just makes things even more wasteful) as all referendum are a waste of money. If you want one, by all means pay for it.

So, The people are at fault for using the democratic options available to them to try and correct an action undertaken by others even though the people never wanted it done in the first place?

I hear China is a great place,And there at least the Great leaders don't have to give a damn what the actual people want or think or expect.

mikebartnz
28-06-2009, 07:55 PM
Poll now says 77% now think $8.9m smacking referendum 'a waste of money', and five percent don't know.

Remarkably, eighteen percent still think it is a good use of money. What planet are they on??
It is only a waste of money because the National and Labour parties won't make referendums binding.
I also say **** Labour for not holding it during the elections

Sweep
28-06-2009, 09:29 PM
Funnily enough if you want the law to go back to more or less what you had before you actually vote No to the question.

I will be voting the no option as I believe a short sharp smack is the right thing to do under certain circumstances.

Like others I do not condone major violence or even verbal abuse over a period of time acceptable.

Like some people I also think that whatever the law is there are some people who just don't give a hoot anyway and will go ahead regardless.

Erayd
28-06-2009, 09:35 PM
I have no objection whatsoever to you spending your hard earned cash on a pointless referendum, but I object to you spending mine...Fair enough. Nobody is forcing you to live in a country where Citizens' Initiated Referendums are legislated - you're welcome to move somewhere more in line with your views.


...I don't care what the issue is really...Golly gosh - an apathetic voter. In my book, that's almost criminal. If you don't care about the issues enough to understand them, then you have no grounds for complaint.


...albeit given the lack of any obvious problems with the way the law works...No obvious problems? How about making perfectly reasonable parents criminals? Whether the law is enforced or not isn't the point - the issue is that smacking your children is now legally a criminal offense. Note that this is *not* the same thing as 'child-beaters' - the old law covered that just fine, it simply needed enforcing. Many people view the new wording in the same league as making shouting a criminal offense.


...that just makes things even more wasteful as all referendum are a waste of money. If you want one, by all means pay for it.
If all referendums are a waste of money, then what do you propose as an alternative? Riots? Assassination? Bribes?

If you're going to remove the only current way for people to provide feedback to the government on a significant scale, then you need to replace it with something else. It's all very well to moan about the cost, but unless you can provide a viable alternative, you don't have much of an argument.

johcar
28-06-2009, 09:49 PM
Can someone please explain to me why the words "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" are ambiguous?

Or is this just the government (and opposition) trying to confuse Joe Voter into thinking it IS ambiguous?

If it was me, the only change I would make to the wording would be to add a couple of commas: "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand".

But I think it's pretty clear anyway you read it....

Erayd
28-06-2009, 09:52 PM
There's nothing ambiguous about the question itself - anyone who tells you that is just spreading FUD.

Where the ambiguity lies is how that relates to the new law - i.e. if someone supports smacking, does that mean they want the new law repealed? Or do they support the new law as well, but just want some assurance that they won't get in trouble for smacking their kids?

rob_on_guitar
28-06-2009, 09:59 PM
Sue Bradford just cost everyone more than 9 mil. Thats worse than 18 wives.

Sweep
28-06-2009, 10:22 PM
Unfortunately there are people who do not believe that a smack is acceptable in ANY circumstances so to vote NO would imply that a smack is PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION and should not be considered criminal and therefore such a matter should never get to a Court in the first place.

If you take it further, you could back a case that an adult who grabs a childs arm to stop the child running out on the road in time to be hit by the passing bus, which the child did not see and causes a bruise on the childs skin in the process could be charged with an offence.

We do not know if any law change would be passed as the referendum is non-binding anyway.

We don't know what amendments would be made to the current situation either.

In any event we need to tidy up the situation as it stands and we need to come up with clear laws that can and will be enforced.

As I mentioned before, having laws in place may be one thing, but some so-called parent who is full of P or booze will not actually care.

And where does a care-giver come into the equation where, for example, Uncle Sweep is looking after his Brother's child and gives the child a smack or pulls the child out of the path of the bus mentioned earlier. Am I in loco parentis at the time?

What of a school teacher who breaks up a fight at the school? Can they separate the combatants by pushing them apart? Would that be considered an assault?

I just want the rules to be clear and to the point and be enforced.
I wouldn't think that is too much to ask from our law-makers.

Well it might be as some of these people are actually taking a nap when laws get passed under urgency late at night.

Erayd
28-06-2009, 10:28 PM
^ x2 :thumbs:, finally we agree on something! :banana

Sweep
28-06-2009, 10:34 PM
^ x2 :thumbs:, finally we agree on something! :banana

:thanks

Chilling_Silence
29-06-2009, 01:18 AM
I know of a family, a while back they got fully investigated by CYFS etc, because their son isn't the most stable on his two feet. Basically the kids got the wobbles and you can see as he walks, what his mind want and what his feet actually *do*, is something totally different half the time.
It took them hours and hours and hours in the courts, one of their extended family members had to take 6-odd weeks off work to look after the little rascals (They have more than one kid) while the family was being investigated.

Why? Because their kid fell over, got a lil bruised, and somebody thought there was violence at home. No foundation for the accusation at all.
What a waste of taxpayers money, investigating that kind of thing!

$9 million to show the country that a law (Which should have never been passed in the first place -- Lets smack Sue Bradford) needs amending to say the least, well worth it IMO.

Also, while the wording isnt the *best* for the whole thing, its not misleading. The FUD spread by the media was horrible. Seriously, what idiot can't understand the question.

That said, it could be 'read' in this manner:
Do you wanna beat your kids? Vote No!
Do you wanna go to court every time your kids trip & fall on their own? Vote Yes!

Its surprisingly easy to spot those with, and those without "family values" by whats been posted.

mikebartnz
29-06-2009, 01:28 AM
No obvious problems? How about making perfectly reasonable parents criminals? Whether the law is enforced or not isn't the point - the issue is that smacking your children is now legally a criminal offense. Note that this is *not* the same thing as 'child-beaters' - the old law covered that just fine, it simply needed enforcing. Many people view the new wording in the same league as making shouting a criminal offense.
The other thing that most people don't realise is that the police under the new law effectively become judge and jury which in my mind is not healthy.

Cicero
29-06-2009, 08:29 AM
The other thing that most people don't realise is that the police under the new law effectively become judge and jury which in my mind is not healthy.

Don't think they are jury,stupid sometimes,but not jury.

mikebartnz
29-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Don't think they are jury,stupid sometimes,but not jury.
Under the new law it says that the police have wide powers of discretion which makes them judge and jury. ie. the law is obviously not well enough defined.

KenESmith
29-06-2009, 09:59 PM
the fact of the matter is that anti smacking legislation should never have been seriously considered for the statute books.
The government should not interfere with the right of parents to discipline ther children with what may be an entirely appropriate level of punishment given the circumstances necessitating the disciplinary action.

Many of our behavioural problems in society arise from a lack of discipline, both in the home and at schools, and whilst I am not generally in favour of physical punishment for children, there are circumstances when it is necessary as a last resort to get the message through to an unreceptive disobedient child.

If the government wishes to apply criminal sanction parents when they found it necessary to phuysically discipline one of their children, then perhaps the same government might like to shoulder the responsibility for raising the children .

There is already sufficient teeth within NZ criminal law to take action against parents who physically abuse their children, or treat them with cruelty.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the anti -smacking made potential criminals out of tens of thousands of decent law abiding loving parents without detering one iota those parents who made a practice af administering unwarrented and cruel physical punishment against their children.

Twelvevolts
29-06-2009, 10:41 PM
It does no such thing, and only a fool would think it did.

So where are all these cases of good parents suffering at the hands of this law? Exactly none so far.

Metla
29-06-2009, 10:45 PM
Give it up, Your arguments have been demolished.You lose.

Twelvevolts
29-06-2009, 10:49 PM
Fair enough. Nobody is forcing you to live in a country where Citizens' Initiated Referendums are legislated - you're welcome to move somewhere more in line with your views.

Golly gosh - an apathetic voter. In my book, that's almost criminal. If you don't care about the issues enough to understand them, then you have no grounds for complaint.

No obvious problems? How about making perfectly reasonable parents criminals? Whether the law is enforced or not isn't the point - the issue is that smacking your children is now legally a criminal offense. Note that this is *not* the same thing as 'child-beaters' - the old law covered that just fine, it simply needed enforcing. Many people view the new wording in the same league as making shouting a criminal offense.

If all referendums are a waste of money, then what do you propose as an alternative? Riots? Assassination? Bribes?

If you're going to remove the only current way for people to provide feedback to the government on a significant scale, then you need to replace it with something else. It's all very well to moan about the cost, but unless you can provide a viable alternative, you don't have much of an argument.


I voted in the general election, I'm not an apathetic voter at all. You dress your cause up anyway you like, it is a nine million dollar protest against a law where so far none of these reasonable parents you refer to have yet to be arrested. This vote won't prove one way or the other whether the law is good or bad, the alternative is letting the majority in parliament have a vote, but that's right you don't agree with that process.

Twelvevolts
29-06-2009, 10:53 PM
Give it up, Your arguments have been demolished.You lose.

Demolished by who? Just repeating what you believe doesn't make you right, and your nine million spend has the majority of New Zealand thinking it is a waste of money, so you can't even muster a majority there either. And after you spend the nine million the end result will be no change at all.

Quit while you are miles behind is my advice to you.

Metla
29-06-2009, 10:55 PM
Enlightenment.

http://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/showpost.php?p=795955&postcount=44

Sweep
29-06-2009, 10:59 PM
So where are all these cases of good parents suffering at the hands of this law? Exactly none so far.

This is not the latest but presumably does show what is happening.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Issues/Anti_smacking_Bill

I hope this helps you understand.

It does not even have to go to court to put a Parent to considerable inconvenience.

Just face it. THE CURRENT SITUATION IS FLAWED!

Twelvevolts
29-06-2009, 11:03 PM
Ok those might even turn out to be real, but is that really a result of the new law? And if it is what use will a nine million dollar referendum with a question that doesn't really address the issue be?

Erayd
29-06-2009, 11:16 PM
So you can't find any examples so you run away from the question.
Methinks you're the one doing the running here - you haven't rebutted *any* of my points so far, and I have systematically demolished yours. Care to take mine on point-by-point?

Edit: I see you've edited your post - yes, it's the result of the new law, because under the old one 'reasonable' force was legal. Now, any force at all is illegal. And the mere fact of having a referendum in this case is far more important than the outcome - just getting that many signatures means a massive proportion of the population are *very* pissed off about the law change!

Chilling_Silence
29-06-2009, 11:48 PM
Twelvevolts you obviously missed my earlier post where I told you how a families life got turned upside-down by the fact their young boy is un-coordinated!

Basically this law strips parents of their ability to discipline their children.

Picture this (Honestly):
You're 9 years old. You want to stay up late and watch TV (As all 9 year olds do), and not only that but you've found where your parents his the lollies in the pantry.
Your father comes in, tells you nicely its bedtime and you need to hand over the sweets. Being 9 years old, and having found out from one of your school friends that adults cant do **** with this new law, you decide to tell him "No, I want to watch TV" and sit there.

As a father, you cant do jack .. why? Because any type of physical contact can easily be misconstrued as physical abuse now.
Lets string this out a little: Father picks up child, child starts kicking and screaming, the lollies fly everywhere in the commotion. Father pops the child in bed and closes the bedroom door walking out to clean up the lollies on the floor. Child rushes out and starts watching the TV again, sitting happily on the sofa, knowing that basically "Dad's luck has run out, if I make enough of a fuss, he's got no choice now but to let me sit here".

Plausible? Under current New Zealand law, yes!

I don't know about you, but I'm getting married this weekend. I would *never* lay a hand on my wife, no matter how pissed off I get (And together we've had some real doozy arguments). I plan to use the same respect for my children, save from the fact that at times some children *do* need a physical incentive to be obedient, or not be disobedient.

mikebartnz
29-06-2009, 11:52 PM
Just repeating what you believe doesn't make you right,
Please read what you wrote there as the same applies to you.


So where are all these cases of good parents suffering at the hands of this law? Exactly none so far.
Even if there wasn't one would that still be a good reason for keeping a stupid law.

mikebartnz
30-06-2009, 01:15 AM
but I'm getting married this weekend.
The best of luck Chill. Hope you don't need it. The luck that is.:)

PCT Joe
30-06-2009, 04:17 PM
Twelvevolts you obviously missed my earlier post where I told you how a families life got turned upside-down by the fact their young boy is un-coordinated!

Basically this law strips parents of their ability to discipline their children.

Picture this (Honestly):
You're 9 years old. You want to stay up late and watch TV (As all 9 year olds do), and not only that but you've found where your parents his the lollies in the pantry.
Your father comes in, tells you nicely its bedtime and you need to hand over the sweets. Being 9 years old, and having found out from one of your school friends that adults cant do **** with this new law, you decide to tell him "No, I want to watch TV" and sit there.

As a father, you cant do jack .. why? Because any type of physical contact can easily be misconstrued as physical abuse now.
Lets string this out a little: Father picks up child, child starts kicking and screaming, the lollies fly everywhere in the commotion. Father pops the child in bed and closes the bedroom door walking out to clean up the lollies on the floor. Child rushes out and starts watching the TV again, sitting happily on the sofa, knowing that basically "Dad's luck has run out, if I make enough of a fuss, he's got no choice now but to let me sit here".

Plausible? Under current New Zealand law, yes!

I don't know about you, but I'm getting married this weekend. I would *never* lay a hand on my wife, no matter how pissed off I get (And together we've had some real doozy arguments). I plan to use the same respect for my children, save from the fact that at times some children *do* need a physical incentive to be obedient, or not be disobedient.

Although I am on this forum to primarily give/seek computer help I must agree with this.

PaulD
30-06-2009, 04:45 PM
Although I am on this forum to primarily give/seek computer help I must agree with this.

Why? It's wrong in the assumptions as to what is and isn't allowed.

This section in the Police guidelines covers Chill's scenario

"Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child's will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under this subsection i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s 59(1)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action."

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html

Erayd
30-06-2009, 04:53 PM
...This section in the Police guidelines covers Chill's scenario...

Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced.

Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law.

somebody
30-06-2009, 05:04 PM
Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced.

Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law.

Plus - the act of a police and/or CYFS investigation is distressing for the families involved. While they may not be charged, the fact that good parents are treated like criminals until the police decide not to prosecute is unacceptable.

PaulD
30-06-2009, 05:10 PM
Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced.

Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law.

You are wrong as well.

The guide lines contain Section 59 with my bolding. You just have to give up force as punishment.

"Section 59 states:

"(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of -

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."

mikebartnz
30-06-2009, 05:18 PM
Note the bold text - it says that the police may choose to ignore it, but it's still illegal. The very fact of it being illegal is what most people are annoyed about, not how it's being enforced.

Police guidelines are *not* the same thing as the law.
This is why I say the police have become judge and jury.

Erayd
30-06-2009, 06:50 PM
You are wrong as well... you just have to give up force as punishment.Nope - you forgot about the fact that clause 2 overrides clause 1, as stated in clause 3. If you're going to dispute my point by quoting legislation, you need to take everything that may have an impact into account.

For your information, I've quoted the relevant material below, along with links to the sources if you wish to check their accuracy.

Current legislation in force:


Source: http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/25.0/DLM328291.html#DLM328291

Parental control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.Noting that (2) overrides (1), use of force against a child is *always* illegal. (4) gives the police discretion on whether or not to prosecute, but that's all - using force against a child, for any reason whatsoever, is still always illegal!

Now let's contrast the original versions:


Source: http://legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/2005/se/010se59.html

59 Domestic discipline

(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in
the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of
correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the
circumstances.

(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force towards a child in
contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.As you can see, using force against a child for correctional purposes is permissed, provided such force is reasonable (i.e. not excessive), and takes the circumstances into account

(3) refers to the education act as well - I've quoted the relevant bit here to remove all possible confusion.


Source: http://legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/2006/se/013se139A.html

139A No corporal punishment in early childhood centres or registered
schools

(1) No person who---

(a) is employed by a board (within the meaning of section 2(1)) at or in
respect of a school or institution administered by the board; or

(b) is employed by the managers (within the meaning of section 35A(1))
of a private school at or in respect of the school; or

(c) is employed by the management of an early childhood centre (within
the meaning of section 308(1)) at or in respect of the centre; or

(d) owns, manages, or controls an early childhood centre (within the
meaning of section 308(1)),---

shall use force, by way of correction or punishment, towards any student
or child enrolled at or attending the school, institution, or centre,
unless that person is a guardian of the student or child.

(2) No person who is supervising or controlling---

(a) on behalf of a board (within the meaning of section 2(1)) any
student enrolled at or attending a school or institution administered by the
board; or

(b) on behalf of the managers (within the meaning of section 35A(1)) of
a private school any student enrolled at or attending the school; or

(c) on behalf of the management of an early childhood centre (within the
meaning of section 308(1)) any child enrolled at or attending the
centre,---

shall use force, by way of correction or punishment, towards the student
or child, unless that person is a guardian of the student or child.Pay close attention to that last paragraph. What this section means is that corporal punishment at an education institution is illegal, except where administered by a parent or guardian. The current version of the Education Act was rewritten to exclude this exception, in the same amendment that replaced section 59 of the Crimes Act.

You can find the actual amendment here (http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0018/latest/DLM407664.html?search=ts_act_crimes_noresel&sr=1).

Noting all of the above, I'd say it's pretty clear that smacking your children for the purpose of correction was legal before, and now isn't. If you can find any possible way to dispute that, I'd love to hear from you - as far as I can see, the legislation is pretty black and white and leaves no room for ambiguity.

PaulD
30-06-2009, 07:59 PM
Nope - you forgot about the fact that clause 2 overrides clause 1, as stated in clause 3.

Noting all of the above, I'd say it's pretty clear that smacking your children for the purpose of correction was legal before, and now isn't. If you can find any possible way to dispute that, I'd love to hear from you - as far as I can see, the legislation is pretty black and white and leaves no room for ambiguity.

I'm not trying to find a way to justify smacking for correction. S 59 Clause 1 allows for prevention of disruptive behaviour. The Law Commission's view on whether this applies to "timeout" is in this link http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17516

Erayd
30-06-2009, 08:02 PM
I'm not trying to find a way to justify smacking for correction. S 59 Clause 1 allows for prevention of disruptive behaviour. The Law Commission's view on whether this applies to "timeout" is in this link http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17516

Aaah, gotcha. I thought you were trying to argue that the revised S59 was unrelated to correctional smacking, or didn't criminalise it, hence my above posts.

And yes, the view you quote above is that forcefully removing a child to 'timeout' is a criminal offence:
The opinion of Peter McKenzie QC
Mr McKenzie concludes that under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as proposed by Sue Bradford, carrying a child against his or her will to "time out" or a "naughty mat" will be a criminal act that exposes parents to prosecution for assault. This is because the redrafted defence in section 59(2) provides that "nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction". For most parents, it is said, a corrective purpose would be the dominant or indeed the only purpose for "time out".

PaulD
30-06-2009, 08:26 PM
And yes, the view you quote above is that forcefully removing a child to 'timeout' is a criminal offence:

You've quoted the view of a QC without reading the Law Commission's response to it.

"We suggest that, in the vast majority of "time out" cases, parents will be prompted by a mix of motives, which may include prohibited correctional purposes, but in all likelihood will also include other permitted purposes. It is thus questionable whether in such cases a jury could ever properly convict a parent beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn may tell against the likelihood of prosecution."

Twelvevolts
30-06-2009, 08:38 PM
Methinks you're the one doing the running here - you haven't rebutted *any* of my points so far, and I have systematically demolished yours. Care to take mine on point-by-point?

Edit: I see you've edited your post - yes, it's the result of the new law, because under the old one 'reasonable' force was legal. Now, any force at all is illegal. And the mere fact of having a referendum in this case is far more important than the outcome - just getting that many signatures means a massive proportion of the population are *very* pissed off about the law change!

I only edited the post because another post was added in the middle and it didn't therefore make it clear I was replying to Metla.

I'm not sure what points you've made I haven't responded to, responding line by line might seem systematic to you but you actually have to make a point, not just suggest I live overseas because I don't believe in spending nine million on a referendum.

So the points you haven't refuted as far as far as I can see.

1. The majority of people in this country don't believe 9 millions dollars is usefully being spent on this referendum.
2. There doesn't appear to have been a single case taken by the Police since the act where a reasonable person would consider the act correction. (punching a child for example is not what most people think is reasonable).
3. The referendum won't change the law.
4. The referendum is therefore a waste of money.

The law was introduced by the Greens (I believe) but was supported by both the major political parties, that's called democracy.

I don't know the exact voting pattern but a subsequent election and a new Government, and they still don't want collectively to repeal the law.

I wasn't a fan of introducing this law and certainly don't believe reasonable parents should be arrested.

The various examples given about agencies other than the Police are not really relevant, the Police enforce this law not Governement Departments. Whether or agencies act appropriately or not, they don't appear to do that under the authority of this act, and indeed the same complaints were made about them before. Those complaints may well be valid, you'd have to investigate each one to know, because people accused of wrong doing are likely to minimise their behaviour and seek sympathy under claims of wrong doing under the act.

If this act doesn't work, I believe the political parties will want to change it. The stated reason they aren't doing this now is they haven't seen example of the fears you have about it becoming a reality.

Like any law, it might not really be tested until someone is arrested who administered a light smack, but the way I read it such a case won't get very far, and if it does the law will get changed pretty quickly I'd suspect.

johcar
30-06-2009, 08:38 PM
You've quoted the view of a QC without reading the Law Commission's response to it.

"We suggest that, in the vast majority of "time out" cases, parents will be prompted by a mix of motives, which may include prohibited correctional purposes, but in all likelihood will also include other permitted purposes. It is thus questionable whether in such cases a jury could ever properly convict a parent beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn may tell against the likelihood of prosecution."

A jury can be fickle....

Twelvevolts
30-06-2009, 09:05 PM
Please read what you wrote there as the same applies to you.


Even if there wasn't one would that still be a good reason for keeping a stupid law.

A law that was passed by the two main political parties and not repealed when the election changed the party/parties in power. That's democracy.

There are plenty of stupid laws I'd imagine, do we want to spend nine million on each one??

Metla
30-06-2009, 09:34 PM
This law has cost us untold more then 9 million, The people responsible for the cost are the ones who created the law.

It makes no difference if the full weight of this law has been used, or if anyone has yet to suffer badly under the consequences, the fact is good honest people are saying they don't accept the government has the right to enact laws that are considered to be wrong,very wrong.

mikebartnz
30-06-2009, 09:59 PM
A law that was passed by the two main political parties and not repealed when the election changed the party/parties in power. That's democracy.

There are plenty of stupid laws I'd imagine, do we want to spend nine million on each one??
All I want is for the govt to be bound by the referendums we have. It is absolutely stupid to have a referendum if it is not binding and quite frankly I don't think it is very democratic if the govt is not going to listen to what the people want.

R2x1
30-06-2009, 10:09 PM
This law, regardless of what may have been intended appears to have been followed by ever worsening child cruelty acts. That is what happened, not what was intended, or laid down in guidelines. The child abusers ignore the law and nothing will change that under the present or proposed legislation. Some children can and do abuse the "rights" that they are so vigorously informed of to the general detriment of all children.
The solution is simple, no children permitted whatsoever for the next three generations.

Metla
30-06-2009, 10:43 PM
The law worked as intended, It was never about the rights of children or their safety, It had nothing to do with worthy governance, It was all about guaranteeing the support of the green party so labour could stay in power,and pass more self-serving unwarranted laws while they continued to dig this country into a big freaking hole.

Erayd
30-06-2009, 11:15 PM
You've quoted the view of a QC without reading the Law Commission's response to it.

"We suggest that, in the vast majority of "time out" cases, parents will be prompted by a mix of motives, which may include prohibited correctional purposes, but in all likelihood will also include other permitted purposes. It is thus questionable whether in such cases a jury could ever properly convict a parent beyond reasonable doubt, which in turn may tell against the likelihood of prosecution."

Oops - my bad, I thought you were trying to draw attention to the QC's quote, and figured that pasting it here might be useful. Apologies if I missed the stuff you were actually referring to, that was not my intention.

Erayd
01-07-2009, 12:00 AM
...responding line by line might seem systematic to you but you actually have to make a point, not just suggest I live overseas because I don't believe in spending nine million on a referendum. Fair enough. I use point-by-point because it's easier to keep track of, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea. And the point I was trying to make with my 'put-up-or-move' comment (possibly I was a little obscure there, and I let my feelings on the subject get away on me a bit) was that referenda are one of the core functions of our democratic system, and the *only* way for the government to get feedback from a significant portion of the voting population on particular issues. The national census is good, but it happens far too rarely to be of any use on an election-term timescale. As one of the few truly democratic countries in the world, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't treat that lightly - ignoring a referendum is the first step down a very slippery slope away from democracy.


So the points you haven't refuted as far as far as I can see.

1. The majority of people in this country don't believe 9 millions dollars is usefully being spent on this referendum.I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's possible that I have missed whichever poll stated this - do you have a link to a reliable (and statistically sound) source? Noting the 77% figure you quoted above, this is getting into I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it territory for me. I'm a cynic by nature.


2. There doesn't appear to have been a single case taken by the Police since the act where a reasonable person would consider the act correction. (punching a child for example is not what most people think is reasonable).I actually agree with you here, however as I stated above I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether people have been (or will be) prosecuted over this, but rather that it actually makes the action itself illegal. It's like saying that walking down a footpath is illegal, but the cops have been instructed to turn a blind eye. The issue I have is not with how the law is being enforced, but with the law itself.


3. The referendum won't change the law.
The referendum won't *necessarily* change the law, but it will make the politicians sit up and think, and at least take a serious look at it. And if the result is overwhelmingly in favour of making smacking legal (which extensive polling at the time of the amendment showed was the case), then in most people's eyes they have a moral obligation to make that happen.


4. The referendum is therefore a waste of money.This is the part of your argument I don't understand. Can you clarify it for me?

The way I understand your argument is that you consider ~$5ish per working person a waste of money, because you don't think the government should receive accurate feedback on an issue that an overwhelming number of people have complained about, and asked the government to get feedback on. You also want the government to pass legislation on an issue that a large number of people feel that they don't understand properly, without yourself having any say at all on its outcome, and also denying a say to those who it directly affects.

In addition, you either don't think you should be entitled to give feedback of your own, or you think you should have to pay extra for the right to give that feedback on a case-by-case basis, and that those who don't pay (or can't afford to) shouldn't be allowed a voice.

Essentially, you believe that the only large-scale feedback the government should care about is the general elections.

Is that what you mean, or did you mean something else? Possibly I'm missing something, but as far as I can see that is the only logical conclusion one can draw from your statement.


The law was introduced by the Greens (I believe)...Yes - it was a member's bill written by Sue Bradford (Green MP).


...but was supported by both the major political parties...Except it wasn't. It was *voted for* by both major parties, but national never supported the bill. The bill had the numbers to pass anyway, without them, however by voting for the bill they got a couple of their own amendments into it to soften the wording a little. I personally think they should have made a moral stand and voted no anyway, but realistically they were being pragmatic - at the time, they were in Opposition and their vote made no practical difference to the outcome.


...that's called democracy.Noting that according to polling at the time over 90% of the population were against amending S59, I'd say that's actually pretty undemocratic. A democratic government is supposed to listen to the population it represents and carry out the wishes of that population - something that clearly didn't happen here; they just did what they wanted to and to hell with what the population thought.


I don't know the exact voting pattern but a subsequent election and a new Government, and they still don't want collectively to repeal the law.Indeed - the main reason for this, as far as I can see, is that both the opposition and the mainstream media will paint this as 'supporting child abuse'. While this is far from correct, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people will believe it - and the type of people who will believe it are the ones who flipped from Labour to National at the last general election, and could easily flip back - they're some of National's most fickle supporters. Essentially, they're worried that changing the law back will cost them a large number of votes in 2011. I personally think that ignoring a referendum will cost them more, so we may actually get to see some action there.


I wasn't a fan of introducing this law and certainly don't believe reasonable parents should be arrested.On that we agree :-).


The various examples given about agencies other than the Police are not really relevant, the Police enforce this law not Governement Departments. Whether or agencies act appropriately or not, they don't appear to do that under the authority of this act, and indeed the same complaints were made about them before. Those complaints may well be valid, you'd have to investigate each one to know, because people accused of wrong doing are likely to minimise their behaviour and seek sympathy under claims of wrong doing under the act. That's true, but only up to a point. While the police are the ones who would actually prosecute, it's often the government agencies who will investigate first, to establish the facts. Noting their mandate, they are obligated to investigate and report this to the police, regardless of what the police actually do with it. And while a CYFS investigation is not in itself a legal punishment, it can be very, very stressful for all involved, and for those who are subject to it the scrutiny and processes involved can easily be every bit as damaging as a court conviction.


If this act doesn't work, I believe the political parties will want to change it. The stated reason they aren't doing this now is they haven't seen example of the fears you have about it becoming a reality.That is their stated reason, but I personally don't believe it's the real reason - I think the real reason is they are scared of losing the sheep vote.


Like any law, it might not really be tested until someone is arrested who administered a light smack, but the way I read it such a case won't get very far, and if it does the law will get changed pretty quickly I'd suspect.Absolutely - agree with you 100% on this one. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get such a test case, or at least not for quite some time.

Metla
01-07-2009, 01:19 PM
I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's possible that I have missed whichever poll stated this - do you have a link to a reliable (and statistically sound) source? Noting the 77% figure you quoted above, this is getting into I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it territory for me. I'm a cynic by nature.



$5 his figures were sourced from a poll on stuff.co.nz.

Erayd
01-07-2009, 01:51 PM
$5 his figures were sourced from a poll on stuff.co.nz.
Ha, those aren't reliable at all!

johcar
01-07-2009, 01:52 PM
$5 his figures were sourced from a poll on stuff.co.nz.

Accuracy of + or - 100%...

Gobe1
01-07-2009, 03:28 PM
Twelvevolts you obviously missed my earlier post where I told you how a families life got turned upside-down by the fact their young boy is un-coordinated!

Basically this law strips parents of their ability to discipline their children.

Picture this (Honestly):
You're 9 years old. You want to stay up late and watch TV (As all 9 year olds do), and not only that but you've found where your parents his the lollies in the pantry.
Your father comes in, tells you nicely its bedtime and you need to hand over the sweets. Being 9 years old, and having found out from one of your school friends that adults cant do **** with this new law, you decide to tell him "No, I want to watch TV" and sit there.

As a father, you cant do jack .. why? Because any type of physical contact can easily be misconstrued as physical abuse now.
Lets string this out a little: Father picks up child, child starts kicking and screaming, the lollies fly everywhere in the commotion. Father pops the child in bed and closes the bedroom door walking out to clean up the lollies on the floor. Child rushes out and starts watching the TV again, sitting happily on the sofa, knowing that basically "Dad's luck has run out, if I make enough of a fuss, he's got no choice now but to let me sit here".

Plausible? Under current New Zealand law, yes!

I don't know about you, but I'm getting married this weekend. I would *never* lay a hand on my wife, no matter how pissed off I get (And together we've had some real doozy arguments). I plan to use the same respect for my children, save from the fact that at times some children *do* need a physical incentive to be obedient, or not be disobedient.

Ya cant do jack alright but it doesnt say you cant put an axe through his playstation.... bbbwwwaaaahahahahaaaa.
Im not voting.

SolMiester
01-07-2009, 03:55 PM
deleted.....

Twelvevolts
01-07-2009, 06:46 PM
All I want is for the govt to be bound by the referendums we have. It is absolutely stupid to have a referendum if it is not binding and quite frankly I don't think it is very democratic if the govt is not going to listen to what the people want.

You obviously have more faith in the majority than I do. I'm sure we'd soon end up with all kind of crazy laws based on whatever wheelbarrow someone was pushing that week. Most people wouldn't vote and a minority could effectively push any agenda. Kind of like local body elections currently.

Twelvevolts
01-07-2009, 06:51 PM
Fair enough. I use point-by-point because it's easier to keep track of, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea. And the point I was trying to make with my 'put-up-or-move' comment (possibly I was a little obscure there, and I let my feelings on the subject get away on me a bit) was that referenda are one of the core functions of our democratic system, and the *only* way for the government to get feedback from a significant portion of the voting population on particular issues. The national census is good, but it happens far too rarely to be of any use on an election-term timescale. As one of the few truly democratic countries in the world, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't treat that lightly - ignoring a referendum is the first step down a very slippery slope away from democracy.

I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's possible that I have missed whichever poll stated this - do you have a link to a reliable (and statistically sound) source? Noting the 77% figure you quoted above, this is getting into I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it territory for me. I'm a cynic by nature.

I actually agree with you here, however as I stated above I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether people have been (or will be) prosecuted over this, but rather that it actually makes the action itself illegal. It's like saying that walking down a footpath is illegal, but the cops have been instructed to turn a blind eye. The issue I have is not with how the law is being enforced, but with the law itself.


The referendum won't *necessarily* change the law, but it will make the politicians sit up and think, and at least take a serious look at it. And if the result is overwhelmingly in favour of making smacking legal (which extensive polling at the time of the amendment showed was the case), then in most people's eyes they have a moral obligation to make that happen.

This is the part of your argument I don't understand. Can you clarify it for me?

The way I understand your argument is that you consider ~$5ish per working person a waste of money, because you don't think the government should receive accurate feedback on an issue that an overwhelming number of people have complained about, and asked the government to get feedback on. You also want the government to pass legislation on an issue that a large number of people feel that they don't understand properly, without yourself having any say at all on its outcome, and also denying a say to those who it directly affects.

In addition, you either don't think you should be entitled to give feedback of your own, or you think you should have to pay extra for the right to give that feedback on a case-by-case basis, and that those who don't pay (or can't afford to) shouldn't be allowed a voice.

Essentially, you believe that the only large-scale feedback the government should care about is the general elections.

Is that what you mean, or did you mean something else? Possibly I'm missing something, but as far as I can see that is the only logical conclusion one can draw from your statement.

Yes - it was a member's bill written by Sue Bradford (Green MP).

Except it wasn't. It was *voted for* by both major parties, but national never supported the bill. The bill had the numbers to pass anyway, without them, however by voting for the bill they got a couple of their own amendments into it to soften the wording a little. I personally think they should have made a moral stand and voted no anyway, but realistically they were being pragmatic - at the time, they were in Opposition and their vote made no practical difference to the outcome.

Noting that according to polling at the time over 90% of the population were against amending S59, I'd say that's actually pretty undemocratic. A democratic government is supposed to listen to the population it represents and carry out the wishes of that population - something that clearly didn't happen here; they just did what they wanted to and to hell with what the population thought.

Indeed - the main reason for this, as far as I can see, is that both the opposition and the mainstream media will paint this as 'supporting child abuse'. While this is far from correct, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people will believe it - and the type of people who will believe it are the ones who flipped from Labour to National at the last general election, and could easily flip back - they're some of National's most fickle supporters. Essentially, they're worried that changing the law back will cost them a large number of votes in 2011. I personally think that ignoring a referendum will cost them more, so we may actually get to see some action there.

On that we agree :-).

That's true, but only up to a point. While the police are the ones who would actually prosecute, it's often the government agencies who will investigate first, to establish the facts. Noting their mandate, they are obligated to investigate and report this to the police, regardless of what the police actually do with it. And while a CYFS investigation is not in itself a legal punishment, it can be very, very stressful for all involved, and for those who are subject to it the scrutiny and processes involved can easily be every bit as damaging as a court conviction.

That is their stated reason, but I personally don't believe it's the real reason - I think the real reason is they are scared of losing the sheep vote.

Absolutely - agree with you 100% on this one. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get such a test case, or at least not for quite some time.

You're becoming almost reasonable. Yes this started when a poll came out saying the majority of people don't want this to go ahead (75% I think it was). So if you believe in majority rule, you'll be hoping it is called off.

Erayd
01-07-2009, 07:05 PM
You're becoming almost reasonable. Yes this started when a poll came out saying the majority of people don't want this to go ahead (75% I think it was). So if you believe in majority rule, you'll be hoping it is called off.I believe in democratic process, which normally means majority rule.

Out of interest, where are you getting your "most people don't want a referendum" figures from?

Twelvevolts
01-07-2009, 07:17 PM
I believe in democratic process, which normally means majority rule.

Out of interest, where are you getting your "most people don't want a referendum" figures from?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10581221

That's a majority.

Erayd
01-07-2009, 07:20 PM
Yep. They're not saying they don't want it though, only that it's a waste of money. Two very different things :).

mikebartnz
01-07-2009, 07:42 PM
You obviously have more faith in the majority than I do. I'm sure we'd soon end up with all kind of crazy laws based on whatever wheelbarrow someone was pushing that week. Most people wouldn't vote and a minority could effectively push any agenda. Kind of like local body elections currently.
That is how democracy works. The majority rule. We wouldn't end up with all sorts of crazy laws because of the fact there needs to be over 300,000 to sign the petition to get a referendum in the first place and that does take a little effort.