Mary Harris, Clerk of the House of Representatives, has received a proposal to promote an indicative referendum petition under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 (the CIR Act).
Clerk of the House receives referendum proposal
The proposal is from Larry Baldock, and the wording of the question proposed to be put to voters in an indicative referendum is:
“Should Citizens Initiated Referenda seeking to repeal or amend a law be binding?”.
Under the CIR Act, the Clerk of the House is now inviting comment on this wording. Comment should focus on the criteria set out in section 10 of the CIR Act: the wording of the question should be such as to—
convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum, and
ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.
Anyone wishing to comment must send three written 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.
CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Clerk of House advertises referendum
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
In true democracy when people speak government need to listen. My response a big YES.
The question is far to wordy! It only needs to ask 'Should Citizen Initiated Referendums Be Binbing'! But if it is more likely to be passed in its current form then yes, let's run with the longer version.
Should we assume it is binding... on the government? Does this need to be said? Why just on existing laws? What about other referendums? Would a referendum that says we should bring back capital punishment be ok? After all there is some law on this isn't there?
It may be wordy BUT that is what the submission period will sort through Going for this one specific binding CIR is to produce a victory. This would then expose all types of past legislation, when demonstratively shown to be rejected by the voters, to change, correction, or total elimination. And the saying "success will bread more success" is critical. We must win this by the principal of incrementalism. The favoured process of Wellington. We are loosing our freedoms and our democracy a little at a time (incrementally). We need to reverse this one at a time until we have a sufficient ground swell, that we can see permanent change to recover a full and glorious democracy. Not an elected elite headed by a dictator one of whom could become a 21st century Hitler!
Steve,
I like your improved version, but would like to stengthen it further so it reads thus:
"Should the law be amended to make the results of citizens initiated referendums, including this one, binding on the New Zealand Government and Parliament?"
I am deeply suspicious of the political class and believe we must do all we can to ensure that the result is a clear command to both government and parliament to obey the will of the people.
Post a Comment