Inside the mind of the confused Jordan Williams of Vote for Change: "I believe that democracy is not about representation"

Jordan Williams is not opposed to voting for MMP in certain circumstances

Last time I looked, we lived in a representative democracy, that is to say, a type of democracy in which citizens delegate authority to elected representatives. These representatives sit in a House of Representatives and democratically represent us. We democratically elect them.

But don’t tell former Green Party member Jordan Williams that. The spokesperson for anti-MMP group Vote for Change thinks that democracy is about something other than representation, namely accountability, and he explained it to us briefly at a meeting tonight. At least, he tried to.

Basically he thinks that MMP is about representation and First Past the Post is about accountability – and given that the Supplementary Member electoral system is so similar to FPP, he thinks that it is about accountability too, and therefore democratic, but we are not sure to what extent because Supplementary Member has ugly list seats that he thinks are the “fundamental flaw of MMP”, but not SM.

Williams thinks list seats are so bad, he says that “a vote for MMP is a vote for shutting down debate” despite the fact that it Is a vote to opening up the debate as to what type of MMP system we would like.

But he thinks democracy is about accountability, which is why he likes First Past the Post, says he prefers Supplementary Member, and thinks that a select committee system under these two electoral systems – essentially a rubber stamping exercise - is about accountability – as in unbridled power.

So it is no wonder that Vote for Change, which now has just five supportershas not decided on which electoral system it is supporting, even though most prefer Supplementary Member.

It has a spokesperson that is supposed to oppose MMP, but the confusing thing is that, despite opposing MMP, Williams says if there was a referendum at the 2014 election between MMP and STV ( Single Transferable Vote) he may even vote MMP (the system he says shuts down debate) even though STV ( a system he refuses to debate benefits of) has no list seats. Williams is undecided. “I don’t know which way I’d vote,” he says.

More about → Inside the mind of the confused Jordan Williams of Vote for Change: "I believe that democracy is not about representation"

What’s happening with the public education campaign on the voting system

As most will know, the Electoral Commission is charged with letting people know about the upcoming referendum on MMP and have done a nationwide mailout on the basics of the four voting systems up for grabs, videos and TV ads. As is always the case, vested interest groups are providing their slant – the most prominent being the Vote for MMP and the Vote for Change groups.

The media and blogosphere have been involved also, with a mixture of fact and misinformation. Graeme Edgeler has been offering a fact-checking service to correct any misinformation.

Some of the discussion is ambigious – for example Vote for Change spokesperson Jordan Williams says he supports a fair electoral system –particularly not a system like MMP where MPs come in off the list after losing their seat – while personally supporting an alternative to MMP that does just that, while at the same time refusing to say what his group publicly supports.

While much of the discussion is political punditry, the voters in Te Tai Tokerau and Taumaranui probably couldn’t care less provide they get their benefits each week. It is these people that are unlikely to vote and it is these people that are to be communicated with via a public communication campaign so that they can make an informed decision and get out and vote..

Yet the main thrust of the Electoral Commission’s campaign will not kick in until six weeks before the election – that’s three months away and right in the middle of the Rugby World Cup final stages. What happens if people believe that if they vote for MMP in the first referendum question it is pointless voting for one of the four alternatives in the second question? What if they don’t want to keep MMP and vote for First Past the Post in the second referendum question because they’d rather have fewer list seats in parliament, or because they’d rather see a reformed version of MMP and don’t know it may be reviewed – or believe it will be reviewed by the government, or reviewed without public input. What if they voted Supplementary Member on the understanding it will be close to a 70/50 list/electorate split - believing it to be a good middle ground between FPP and MMP?

What it will come down to is informed people such as Edgeler, and hopefully the Electoral Commission, to fact check inaccuracies, miscommunication and misinterpretation - but will these messages get through to the wider public in time to make an informed decision come election day?

More about →

More on that referendum on the voting system

Sometimes I wish I was a journalist, even if it was to clarify answers given by Jordan Williams. Well I am a journalist, but not for radio or TV.

Also, just to clarify, there are two questions in the referendum on the electoral system, to be held at the general election.You will be asked whether you want to retain MMP or change to another system. Then you`ll be asked which of four other voting systems to choose from should voters opt for change.

You can answer both questions, or one question – i.e you can answer the second question even if you don’t answer the first one, and vice versa. That’s important. If MMP is kept, it will be reformed, the second question will become irrelevant and there`ll be no 2014 referendum.

Vote for Change are banking on there being a referendum in 2014 between MMP and the favoured alternative. Spokesperson Jordan Williams was on TVNZ today. He said:

NZers should tick to change the system this election, so we actually get to see what this reformed MMP would look like. .. It would be a disaster if NZers vote to keep MMP and we hand the power over to the politicians to reform it.

Two points:
1. Politicians will not be reforming MMP – the Electoral Commission will. The Government will decide whether to adopt its recommendations.
2. There is no guarantee we will “actually get to see what the reformed MMP will look like” if we tick to change the system as the government may not hold a 2014 referendum.What if the government decides to stick with the the chosen 2011 alternative for the 2014 election should a majority decide to ditch MMP? MMP will be gone.What if the alternative system is chosen in 2014? There’s a better chance to see MMP reformed (and sooner) if we tick to keep it in 2011.

So in sum, if MMP is retained in 2011, it is after that we will get to see “what this reformed MMP would look like". If it is not, the favoured system as voted in the second referendum question should run off against MMP in a referendum in 2014. If MMP loses again, we don’t get to see MMP reformed, if MMP wins, we do.

If you want to see MMP reformed, vote for it in 2011.Got that?

More about →

Voting for electoral system change

Peter Shirtcliffe may be 80, but he has a lot of say in this new anti MMP “Vote for Change” group, and spokesperson Jordan Williams is merely helping him along a bit.

The group's rules show the committee has just two people: spokesperson Jordan Williams and Peter Shirtcliffe. However Simon Lusk is also involved.This committee holds office until the next Annual General meeting of the society – usually held in May - six months after the election. Perhaps it`ll be a post-mortem on the referendum – that’s if the group has not already been wound up.

If members want to call a special general meeting it can be up to four months before it is held, but if Shirtcliffe and Williams want to hold one, they can do so within 14 days of a committee meeting.

The group’s founding members include Peter Shirtcliffe, Aaron Hape, Annabel Young, Chris Parkin, Emma Daken and Michael Bassett – most signed up by Jordan Williams – all who support one of two electoral systems. The good news about this group is that anyone can apply to join. The bad news is that the couple on the committee can remove any member, or refuse any prospective member, for pretty much any reason – like intending to vote for change to STV. Their decision is final. Only certain "votes for change" are permitted.

Now back to the electoral systems and the possible review of MMP. The “Vote for Change” group believes the review process is flawed as it is up to the politicians to “fix” MMP. Furthermore they’ve said that those who support a review of MMP are really admitting that MMP is “flawed”.

On Morning Report, Williams said that his group is about discussing “what of the four alternative” electoral systems should replace MMP. Yet the group refuses to discuss the benefits of Preferential Voting and the STV systems.

So in reality, the group is about “which of two alternative” electoral systems – First Past the Post or Supplementary Member - should be preferred, with the result being Supplementary Member, as decreed. Those who support any other system could be deemed as acting “contrary to the aims of the society”, as their vote for change is not what Williams and Shirtcliffe propose.

As both Williams and Shirtcliffe have come out in support of Supplementary Member (SM), if other members disagree with an impending announcement to support the SM electoral system, because they support First Past the Post, will that affect their membership, will they be coerced to support SM - or will they be told to shut up.

More about →

The 2011 referendum on the electoral system

Here's a few thoughts on the referendum on the electoral (voting) system.

At the general election there will be a referendum giving you the chance to have your say on the voting system. The Electoral Commission has been working on its publicity campaign and is to post out information on each electoral system starting today.

On election day you`ll be given two voting papers. One will be the standard voting paper, the other one will be a purple voting paper and you`ll be asked two questions:
• The first question asks whether you want to keep MMP (our current voting system) or whether you want to change to another voting system.
• The second question asks which of four other voting systems you would choose if New Zealand decides to change from MMP.

The four alternative voting systems you can choose from are:

First Past the Post (FPP) - the person with the highest plurality of votes in each of the 120 electorates wins – i.e. a candidate can win if he gets fewer than half of the votes, provided he gets more than the others.

Preferential Vote (PV) - the person with the highest majority of votes in each electorate wins, as the candidate must get over 50 percent of the votes to be elected.

Single Transferable Vote(STV) MPs are elected by receiving a minimum number of votes (called a quota – based on the number of votes in each electorate and the number of MPs to be elected in each electorate).

Supplementary Member (SM) - Candidates in 90 electorates are elected the same way as in First Past the Post. The remaining 30 seats in the 120-member Parliament are called supplementary seats. MPs are elected to these seats from political party lists, the same way list MPs are currently under MMP.

If at least half of voters opt to keep MMP, the second question is irrelevant and the Electoral Commission will review MMP in 2012 to recommend, with public input, any changes that should be made to the way it works.

If more than half the voters opt to change the voting system, Parliament will decide if there will be another Referendum in 2014 to choose between MMP and the alternative voting system that gets the most support in the second question in the 2011 Referendum.

The following outlines the split of electorates under the different systems – and how each system compares with the others:
Under MMP we’d have :
16 South lsland electorates
47 North Island electorates
7 Maori electorates
The remaining 50 will be list MPs proportionally allocated from closed political party lists.

Supplementary Member will lead to more North Island, South Island and Maori electorate MPs as there will be fewer list MPs. There are:
21 South Island general electorates
60 North Island general electorates
9 Maori electorates

Once all candidates who receive the highest number of votes are elected, the remaining 30 seats in the 120-member Parliament are called supplementary seats. MPs are proportionally allocated these seats from closed political party lists and are likely to be called List MPs. This system is sometimes called First Past the Post “in drag” as the government outcome is almost identical - and is why many politicos who support National like this system

First Past the Post and Preferential Voting will have even more North and South Island electorate and more Maori electorate MPs as there are no list MPs. We’d have:
•27 South Island general electorates
•81 North Island general electorates
•12 Maori electorates

So given that under FPP and PV, we’d have the same number of electorates in each island and the same number of Maori electorates, what’s the difference between the two systems?

The difference is in the way each MP is elected.

Under FPP, the person with the highest plurality of votes in each electorate wins; under PV, that MP must get over 50 percent of the votes to be elected– and here’s how they do it.

Candidates are preferentially ranked ( 1,2,3 etc) and a candidate who gets more than half of all the first preference votes (that is votes marked "1") wins – as would happen under the other electoral systems..

But it is where no candidate gets more than half the first preference votes that things change. If that was to happen under FPP and MMP, that candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. However under PV, as candidates are ranked, the candidate with the fewest number of “1” votes is eliminated and their votes go to the candidates each voter ranked next.

This process is repeated until one candidate has more than half the votes.

The Single Transferable Vote system will have the same spread of MPs as FPP and PV but fewer electorates as follows:
• About 6 South Island general electorates with a total of 27 MPs
• About 18 North Island general electorates with a total of 81 MPs
• About 4 Maori electorates with total of 12 MPs

So each electorate will have between 3-5 constituent MPs as, with FPP and PV, there are no list MPs.

Where STV differs with the other electoral systems is that there are fewer electorates ,but up to five people can be elected in each electorate, and parties can have two candidates elected from the same electorate, so if you are a National supporter in a Labour constituency you may not appreciate ending up with two Labour MPs, a Green MP and a NZ First MP. Like PV, voters still rank individual candidates ( 1, 2, 3, etc) , but MPs are elected by receiving a minimum number of votes (called a quota).

Candidates who reach the quota from first preference votes are elected. As there are electorate seats to fill after first preference votes are counted, a two-step process follows.

First, votes the elected candidates received beyond the quota are transferred to the candidates ranked next on those votes. Candidates who then reach the quota are elected.

Second, if there are still electorate seats to fill, the lowest polling candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred to the unelected candidates ranked next on those votes.

This two-step process is repeated until all the seats are filled.
So, if the country wants to keep MMP, then all we need to worry about is how to change it – i.e whether the threshold remains at 5%, whether MPs who lose their seats can come in off a safe list seat, whether list MPs should also stand as candidates for a constituency etc. If voters decide to change to another electoral system it’s a long drawn out process which will then need electorate boundary divisions quickly drawn up once we know what system is chosen.

More about →

MMP referendum to be held at the 2011 election

Stuff reports: that the first referendum on the MMP voting system will be held with the 2011 general election. The timeline is here.Although the proposed plan is pretty much the way I said it should be done,in terms of process, there is no mention of any attempts to address gripes within MMP , such as looking at the 5 percent threshold or mix of general or list seats within MMP before the first referendum.

"The first referendum will ask two questions: The first will ask voters if they wish to change the voting system from MMP. The second will ask what alternative voting system they would prefer, from a list of options.

And what if they wish to retain MMP with a lower threshold,a different mix of list and electorate MPs, and a change to the one seat threshold? Do we get to have a say on that? As Mai Chen says, the stability of recent MMP governments suggests that while voters may want to contemplate significant tweaking of the MMP system, they are less likely to clamour for fundamental change involving a switch to another electoral system.

But that is what they are being asked to do even though they dont want to.

Mr Power said Cabinet would make further decisions over the next few months, including drafting the questions, alternate electoral systems and how that referendum will be conducted.

"If a majority of voters opt for a change from MMP, there will be a second referendum at the 2014 general election. This will be a contest between MMP and the alternative voting system that receives the most votes in the first referendum. It will be binding.

So, it's promoted as a change from MMP. How reactionary! I'd prefer to choose an electoral system I want, not to choose between the lesser of two options that aren't as good as a revamped MMP system.
Previous Cabinet consideration** Cabinet decision on MMP process

More about →

Baldock's petition question has been acknowledged

Larry Baldock's petition question has been formally acknowledged. It is:

Should Citizens Initiated Referenda seeking to repeal or amend a law be binding?

Binding on WHOM? On this wording the Government can ignore it on the grounds that the question does not specify who or what is to be bound.

OK, lets take a wild guess and say binding refers to the Government. But even if referenda are binding, isn't it worth stating what you want the Government to do - like state in the question how referenda should direct the government to change the frigging law?

Like, the question should address HOW the government should respond.

The Clerk of the House is now inviting comment on this wording.Send three hard copies to:
The Clerk of the House of Representatives
Parliament House
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

The deadline for comments on the wording of the question is 5pm on Friday, 16 October 2009.

More about →

Smacking defence was used for brain damage:Greens

I have seen some correspondence from the Green Party regarding the section 59 referendum.

If the question asked in the referendum had been “Should a parent be able to avail themselves of a defence of “reasonable force” in the correction of their child in cases where they have caused brain damage to their child” would you have answered “Yes”? Would you seriously want this situation “decriminalised” again? Because that’s what Section 59 was being used for and why police were becoming increasingly reluctant to prosecute serious cases of child assault.

Brain damage. What will the Greens think of next - stab wounds?

More about →

Baldock petition set to be approved by the clerk

I have been advised that Larry Baldock has submitted the question, "should Citizens Initiated Referenda seeking to amend or repeal a law be binding", to the clerk, who has indicated that it will be approved for a petition. Should the petition be successful and a referenda is called on the question as currently worded we would have wasted up to $18m on referenda for no substantial gain. If the votes go the way Baldock wants them to, and the Government agrees, any referenda to change or amend any law will be binding even if only 5 percent of registered voters take part - that's hardly a mandate. Yet referenda seeking to create a new laws won't be binding.

Consequently, this means, hypothetically, that that if a successful referendum was sought on "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand", under such a law, the Government can simply repeal or amend the law how it wants to, because the question does not specifically direct how the Government should amend or repeal the law. It merely has to ensure that only smacks as part of "good" parental correction have to be addressed by an amendment or repeal of the law .

Meaning the term "correction" in the act can merely be amended to "correction that is not part of good correction", or similar wording.. And who decides what is "good", and if it is part of correction? Because, under this scenario, if a smack it is not part - even a minor part - of correction - it will still be a criminal offence as currently. And only "good" correction that is reasonable would be illegal.

Another example raised by the Beretta blog. Imagine living in Germany, where home schooling families are treated like criminals, parents are imprisoned and children removed from the household if they were schooled from home. If the majority in a referendum - say 2.6 percent of the voting population in a 5 percent vote - supported an amendment of existing education law, cementing the right of authorities to immediately and permanently remove children from families suspected of homeschooling, should the state be bound to obey?

Although I support the motives behind this approach - to have the government adhere to the wishes of the people in certain circumstances - the petition question needs to be reworded to achieve the aim of the petitioner, I would have thought. Or perhaps the aim of this petition is merely publicity for the petitioner, not legislative change.

More about →

What on earth is Larry Baldock thinking?

Larry Baldock wants another referendum. So he is going to launch a new petition. The question on the petition will aim to change the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993.

The wording of the question would focus on the issue of whether citizens initiated referenda seeking the repeal or amendment of any law passed by parliament should be binding. It's likely to just piss people off. Even if the petition gets enough signatures there's one small problem.

The referendum calling for some referenda to be binding will itself not be binding.The Government can -and should - ignore it too. If Baldock wants to waste his time chasing his tail, good luck to him. The implications of legislation of this nature do not bear thinking about.

More about →

Cabinet has agreed to ask police not to uphold the law

Cabinet has agreed to ask police and Child Youth and Family to review their procedures to ensure good parents were treated as Parliament intended with regards to smacking legislation.

But if the law is working as parliament intended, as claimed by Key, why this move? Obvious, really, the law is not working as Parliament intended so instead of changing the law, the Government will change the administration of it. As Parliaments' intentions don't match the written law, that is the easier option rather than aligning intention and legislation.

So Parliament intended for a law to be passed but not enforced. Because enforcers were enforcing the law the enforcers have been explicitly told not to enforce it because Key doesn't want to relitigate the "explosive" smacking debate , preferring to put in "additional safeguards"

An independent person would assist in the review which would be completed by December.

In the media conference today Key said

If the law shows that through its application that New Zealand parents are criminalised or their chldren are taken off them for what can only be described as... minor or inconsequential smacking then the law has to be changed

I wonder what Erik and Lisa, whose kids were taken off them for what can only be described as minor or inconsequential smacking, think of that.

A report on the effects of the law would be brought forward from the end of the year to late September/early October and the police would continue with their ongoing reviews of the law.

Not good enough.

More about →

If you break the law we`ll make sure you don't get prosecuted

This is what I think John Key will tell Cabinet tomorrow.

He will advise that the law surrounding smacking should not be changed. Instead he will instruct police and CYFS not to prosecute or investigate cases of light smacking. [Update: well, not before they report every case of smacking to the Government]. This will not reassure parents because he has said this before and one parent got convicted for smacking, with others getting prosecuted.

Our panty-waisted Prime Minister just hasn't got the balls to change the law. We expect Parliament to pass laws in line with democratic interests, not pass policy. The referendum asked whether smacking should be a criminal offence, not whether parents should be prosecuted or investigated by police or CYFS.

Parents want to live within the law, not to break the law in the knowledge that they wont be hassled.What John Key is effectively doing is putting a used condom over the law to provide added protection. It won't work. It is also undemocratic as the public don't want that. They want to parent within the law and smack their children in the knowledge that such as smack is not a criminal offence.

If we can break a criminal law passed by Parliament with the explicit intention, after an overwhelming referendum ,that it will not be upheld, I guess we can break other laws too - perhaps small amounts of shoplifting will be fine, especially in a recession. After all shoplifting laws are working well, aren't they? And shoplifting, like smacking, can also happen in the supermarket.

Any other suggestions welcome.

More about →

Who said this. And when

The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite. For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table.

Anyway, its not the "criminalisation" of parents that is the issue here. Parents don’t want to have to be looking over their shoulders or glancing sideways if they should smack their kid in the supermarket or the mall or wherever, wondering who has ratted on them to the police or to the CYFS. Nor do they want fear investigation or prosecution for an act that they dont consider criminal.

That’s what the law has done. The law needs to be changed. As David Farrar says, Parliament should not insist that a smack is a criminal offence if it lacks majority support for being a criminal act - or in this case one that has massive and sustained opposition. Criminal laws that that have opposition by so many people should be changed.

More about →

Maori are not listening to Maori Party over smacking

Those in the Maori electorates are more opposed to smacking being a criminal offence in New Zealand , on average, than those in the general electorates, despite the Maori Party's stance on the issue

The Maori Party has been encouraging a Yes vote. Yet in one of their electorates it holds, 90.74% of those who took part in the referendum voted no. The lowest was 85.13%. Overall Maori are more opposed to the current law than those in the general electorates.

Wonder what the Maori Party thinks of that.

More about →

A lot of people voted NO

post has been updated
A lot of people voted NO in the referendum this month. In fact more people 1,420,959 - voted No than those who party voted all parliamentary parties other than Labour in the 2008 election, and for all parliamentary parties other than the main governing party every other election since 1996.

The Yes Vote has their collective tails between their legs:

The Yes Vote ran a positive, constructive campaign that attracted the support of hundreds of organisations that deal daily with children and families, and thousands of individuals who reject physical punishment as effective parenting,” said the coalition’s spokesperson, Deborah Morris-Travers.

Trouble is, not a great proportion of the people in those organisations voted Yes, so they didn't even influence their own "supporters". Sue Bradford said she believed that the number of spoiled ballot papers returned may be "comparatively high".

As of today there were 802 invalid votes and 9696 informal votes. Perhaps the 803 invalid votes were spoiled - 0.04%. That's not "comparatively high" and Bradford is nuts to claim that it would be. Its not spin, that's stupidity. Even if you you include the informal votes, that's a little over half a percent, with more votes to be counted.

To further put the vote into perspective, in 1993 55 percent of electors voted in 1993 in the first of a two-part poll, and 85% decided that the electoral system should be changed. In 2009, a higher percentage - 87% decided to vote NO.

More people voted no than supported MMP. More people voted NO than those who didnt vote at all.

John Key said he had listened to the result of the referendum and plans to take some proposals to Cabinet on Monday. But he won't be changing the law.

I think they will give New Zealand parents added comfort that the law is working and that the law will be administered in a way they have resoundingly demonstrated through the referendum that it should be administered.

Oh and another statistic.. The 2008 election turnout was 79.46%, or from 2,386,181 eligible votes, 1,420,959 NO votes out of 2,386,181 people that would bother to vote even in a general election is a 59.55% NO result.

More about →

Boo-hoo Sue

Sue Bradford is already commenting on the results of the smacking referendum before results are even announced.

Feedback I've received from the public over the last few weeks tells me a lot of people feel pretty angry at the confused nature of the referendum question and the waste of $9 million of taxpayers' money this represents

Feedback I've been getting is that a lot of people are pretty angry that Bradfords bangs on about the law provides children from the same legal protection from violence as adults.

Now if she'd only replaced the word violence with correction, she`d be more accurate. But the word "correction" doesn't have the same violent audible soundbite on TV as the word violence does. Sue Bradford is about to get violently riding cropped by the NO voters and she doesn't like it.

Because the rights of the children should come first - except in Green policies like abortion and gay adoption.

More about →

Still needs help

A little girl saw her mum smacking her sister. She was only nine. She called 111. She felt like she needed some adult help.

Her parents don't recall that event. But they were dragged onto nationwide television by that daughter to state that to the nation. Now this daughter has dragged her own daughter into the issue. She is on the posters at Barnardos.

This woman wouldn't be the Barnardos staff member who authorised a letter to staff to say they must vote 'Yes' and are not allowed to vote 'No' in the current referendum on smacking? Surely not.

The woman is Deborah Morris-Travers, of The Yes Vote and has an agenda.

Who would have ever thought?

Morris Travers said her sister left home at 15, had a child at 17 and her mental health was " never good". She got clinical depression and committed suicide at age 35.

And Morris-Travers thinks there is a link between her sister getting smacked and killing herself. She said if her sister was not smacked it is possible she would not have killed herself. Her parents disagree. But Morris-Travers also got smacked. By the same parents. So how come she, as a former MP as well, is still alive?

More about →

Sunday Star Times smacking survey

The results are in from the Sunday Star Times alternative smacking referendum.

Among the 1600 people they sampled; 66% felt that the anti smacking legislation of 2007 should be reversed and 72% felt that smacking a child is acceptable. Of course many qualified this response with the comment that while a light corrective smack may be permissible, child abuse is not. Many respondents suggested that the referendum is ambiguous and does not address the real issue.

More about →

You thought "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" was bad....

It appears that the question which we are asked to answer this month isn't so bad. In 1999 this question was the subject of a petition. The question wording was carefully considered - all it needed was the required signatures to go to the country for a referendum.

Should New Zealand adopt direct democracy by binding referendum whereby ideas for laws would be submitted and voted upon as of right by the public, and, according to the result, submissions collected from the public and then assessed by opinion poll, resulting in draft law alternatives being prepared by independent groups, from which one opinion would be chosen by majority vote by the public; the resulting legislation to be binding?

Needless to say, this 70-word question didn't get the required signatures. But how on earth did the wording get approved for a petition? Imagine putting it on Twitter - it`ll take four tweets just to get the question out.

Would you have answered yes, or no had that been the question?

More about →

Vote NO – or NO vote?

It’s a shambles. I have just got in my mail today a voting paper from a government agency suggesting that I vote in a $9 million citizens initiated referendum, when Prime Minister John Key has effectively said not to bother because my opinions don’t matter and my vote will be disregarded. In a recession, too.

The question, “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” is not the best – but it is no worse than earlier referendum questions. Historically, citizens initiated referenda have been dismissed as irrelevant by Governments. But this one is different as it is the only time a Prime Minister has so publicly stated that my vote does not count before the voting papers have reached my letterbox, while funding promotion of a particular viewpoint through my taxes. In effect John Key has said that should anyone vote, the Government will pay the postage and vote processing, and then ignore it. In other words, don’t bother.

Non-binding referenda are in effect expensive and toothless nationalised opinion polls that have yet to provide citizens the power to alter public policy – while petitioners are charged $500 per question. Making referenda binding won’t help either – very small numbers of people could impose their will. That is exactly what would have happened in 1994 under a binding Act. Just 28% of registered voters bothered to vote on a referendum on the number of firefighters. There would have been protests had the Government been bound by such a referendum - which had no mandate and was essentially a taxpayer–funded industrial dispute.

Some blame Sue Bradford for the current referendum given she initiated the offending legislation. Others blame Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock and Family First director Bob McCoskrie for leading the referendum charge, when it was not even their question.

I`ll let you know who is the culprit. Tomorrow, probably. And like most sensible people, I`ll be voting NO.

More about →