OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Binding Referenda

Entry 1040, on 2009-06-24 at 22:42:51 (Rating 3, Politics)

We live in a democracy which means that the people are supposed to have the real power, but how far should that concept be taken? This is the question effectively being asked with the debate on citizen initiated referenda which is happening in New Zealand at the moment.

A CIR must be run if a petition gains a certain number of votes (I can't remember how many it is but its a fairly respectable number). Everyone on the electoral roll in New Zealand gets to vote on the issue so it costs quite a lot to run, but the final outcome isn't binding on the government. Even if everyone voted in favour of something the government is under no obligation to carry out that wish. The question is then: should they be?

Personally I don't think so although the poll run on the Herald web site today suggests I'm in the minority because 75% of the participants there voted that referendum results should be binding.

The problem with referenda is that they are generally meaningless. In the ones which I recall the questions have been so poorly worded that the outcome really means nothing. The current referendum poses this question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Its a silly question designed to elicit a particular response and I remember previous questions about crime and punishment being equally worthless.

As I blogged about on 2009-06-18 in an entry titled "Ask a Silly Question" I don't intend to vote one way or the other. Instead I will record a complaint about the process itself and send the paper back.

So do people really think that votes on questions posed in such emotive, biased and illogical terms should be binding? I certainly hope that if people really stopped to think about it they would realise that this is not a process we should be following. I'm afraid the greatest extent that the people should gain true power is through who they vote for at each general election, and I'm not even sure they are responsible enough to even do that!

Comment 27 (2221) by OJB on 2009-07-12 at 12:26:46: (view earlier comments)

Yes, I think that is a fair approximation of what we both think. It really just gets down to whether its worth the time and money (the fact that it could have been included at the election is irrelevant) for something that everyone who matters (including the PM, the leader of a party opposing the one which created the legislation) will ignore because its not a fair question.

Comment 28 (2223) by SBFL on 2009-07-12 at 12:33:53:

Okay then, settled.

One more thing. National voted for the new Bradford law and recently they signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Green party. So I do not understand what you mean by: "(including the PM, the leader of a party opposing the one which created the legislation)"

Comment 29 (2228) by OJB on 2009-07-12 at 14:14:11:

OK, they voted for it did they, I stand corrected. So that's all tidied up then, I guess.

Comment 30 (2468) by SBFL on 2009-08-29 at 12:18:53:

Proof of God as outlined by NZ Herald's John Armstrong:

"If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter [anti-smacking law] is proof there is a God - and that he or she has a wicked sense of humour.

How else to explain the private member's bill promoted by Act's John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a "light" smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament's order paper for debate.

The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member's bills - plus the timing just days after the referendum result - suggested divine intervention."

Comment 31 (2469) by OJB on 2009-08-29 at 20:54:25:

Only 28-1 against? That's not very impressive. If (s)he'd really wanted to make a point (s)he could have provided the group opposing the law with extra funds by having them win Lotto at several million to 1 against!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.