Talk:2009 New Zealand child discipline referendum

"No" site

Could someone find a site recommending a "No" vote? I linked Family First and Kiwi Party for NPOV. F (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the two organisations to the body of the page just before coming across this comment. The debate will get heated on the issue as we approach the time of the ballot so it is even more important to watch this page for POV stuff. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal basis?

What is the legal basis in NZ law for this kind of Citizens Initiated Referendum? Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow the first link in the article to Referendums in New Zealand#Citizens.27 initiated referendums. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. – Kaihsu (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The question

The question, for ready reference, is

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Our current wording in the "Criticism of the question section" says

The referendum question has been interpreted by some to imply that "a smack" can form part of "good parental correction".

An anon changed this to say

The referendum question implies that "a smack" can form part of "good parental correction".

The anon was reverted as being POV. However, I can't see that one can read the question as not suggesting that, under certain circumstances, a smack might be appropriate from parents. Is anyone arguing that this is not a reasonable view of the question?-gadfium 06:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If the question has been

"interpreted by some to imply"

but the

"interpretation is not universally held"

then we have a neutral and balanced statement. The anon's claim that the "referendum question implies.........." something is demonstrably NPOV. Unless of course we balance it by saying the question also implies the opposite. That's what the two different interpretations unambiguously indicate. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox?

Shall we add {{Infobox Referendum pending with map}}? I feel that it needs an infobox but I don't really like this one. What do you think?
Adabow (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That template looks fine to me. Do we know if we'll get a break-down by electorate though? We could produce a map using the .svg of the 2008 election results. --Lholden (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re above - it looks like from the 1999 CIRs a break down was given by electorate, so we could do a map. --Lholden (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...1999 was at the election though where as this one will be a postal ballot, so we might not get a breakdown. Any one know how the 1997 referendum results were presented? Mattlore (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a 1997 referendum. Did you mean the New Zealand firefighter referendum, 1995? We present it by electorate. However, it was a vote by physical ballot in polling places, not a postal vote.-gadfium 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I got the year wrong, but its listed as the "New Zealand pensions referendum, 1997" in the Elections and referendums in New Zealand template. This was the one about a compulsory super fund supported by Winston Peters. I am pretty sure it was conducted by Postal vote - but again, could be wrong. Mattlore (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It was 1997. Interestingly it's not listed under the Election Results website - although I understand that referendum wasn't under the CIR Act, while the two held in 1999 were. --Lholden (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about that one, and only looked at CI referendums.

Perhaps someone could email the Ministry of Justice and ask whether they intend to make results available by electorate.-gadfium 01:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This may not be a problem – polls are indicating about 80% voting 'NO', so we could colour the map entirely red.-Adabow (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. According to here, every electorate rejected the referendum.Adabow (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What's your criteria for 'rejected the referendum' ? --Roguebfl (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation Section

I added this section to explain in more detail the Green Party's objection to this referendum (and all similarly unfairly-worded ones). The referendum is structured as, "Do you believe 'good x' should be a criminal offense?" One could just as easily make a biased referendum in favor of wife-beating: "Should hitting one's spouse, as part of good family discipline, be a criminal offense in New Zealand?" If you want to say it can't be part of good family discipline, you're out of luck--it's included in the question, and you can't deny it. Same is true here of smacking. If this referendum were introduced in Wikipedia, it would be widely criticised as having WP:POV problems. It does not use neutral language, which is why it has been so widely criticised, and why it will not accurately gauge the country's sentiment on corporal punishment or smacking. The Greens explain this very clearly in Sue Bradford's bill, and her reasons for introducing the bill.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is interesting, but I haven't seen it reported previously. That the question in the referendum has problems is widely reported, but the suggestion that to vote "yes" is to say that smacking is appropriate is not supported by the reference given, and I have not seen this argument anywhere other than in your posts. Indeed, the way you have worded it suggests that the argument is hypothetical and no one is actually suggesting this. It falls foul of the Original research policy, unless you can find a reference in a reliable source which makes exactly this argument.-gadfium 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation, it is the Green Party's. It would be good if people like you and Xlerate would actually read the reference before undoing. Here is the principal passage if you guys can't bring yourselves to click the link:

The question approved for that referendum "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" is leading in that the use of the word "good" before "parental correction" makes a value judgment which predetermines the answer. People answering the question will be drawn to answer "no" on the basis that what is "good" cannot be criminal.

This clearly supports what I wrote. If the question is leading and loaded, there will be problems with interpreting the result. That is the point of adding this section. If you can bring yourself to admit that this is what I said (though paraphrased), I would appreciate if you would undo the deletion.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also pretty obvious that Caritas has serious questions about the interpretation of the referendum:

Mr Smith says the upcoming referendum will not provide clarity on the question of child discipline, because it is possible to support the 2007 amendment while voting either Yes or No to the referendum question: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

However, Caritas recognises that in the political context of the referendum, a ‘Yes’ vote is seen to be a vote for the status quo, while a ‘No’ vote is seen to be a vote against the 2007 amendment.

“In this context, we recommend a ‘Yes’ vote, as we believe the status quo is close to the position that we recommended to the Select Committee. However, the wording of the question is so ambiguous, many New Zealanders who support efforts to reduce violence against children, may in good conscience still feel obliged to vote ‘No’. It will be hard to understand what the outcome of the referendum may mean,” says Mr Smith.

He says Caritas will be writing to the Prime Minister and other relevant politicians, expressing concern that the ambiguous nature of the question will result in an outcome that cannot be understood as either supporting or opposing the 2007 amendment.

If these statements don't justify an interpretation section, I don't know what will satisfy you. --MoebiusFlip (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel satisfied with an interpretation section that primarily mentions these two block quotes, since they get at the point without me having to add much of anything. Added them now. It would be great to get some notable sources saying that the results will be clear rather than nebulous. It is interesting that as a political question, Caritas thinks that the Yes and the No correspond to positions on the 2007 anti-smacking bill. They then seem to think that when you actually read the referendum (as some people might before voting), it becomes difficult to interpret the result. I'm going to hunt around and see if I can find someone who defends the referendum and says it is easy to interpret the result.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation section that I removed, and commented on above, said:

Supporters of smacking could say that all "yes" votes essentially admit that smacking is part of good parental correction, but that they want to ban this "good" behaviour anyway. Therefore, by its wording, everyone voting "yes" is ridiculed. Those voting "no" assert that spanking is part of good parental correction and that it should not be criminalised. People voting "no" get what they want because the assumption and the question itself are consistent for them. People voting "yes" get a muddled result (even a smack of ridicule for disagreeing with the premise). Presumably, this is precisely what the language of the referendum is meant to do: minimise the "yes" vote and maximise the "no" vote. In that sense, it is very clever wording, but the results will be skewed because many people against smacking simply will not vote.

(There was an additional sentence which I did not delete but moved, as it was a comment from John Key on the likely turnout.)

I cannot see that the sources added since support this interpretation; specifically the idea that a yes vote is to "admit" that smacking is part of good parental behaviour.

The interpretation section added since contains quite different material, and is sourced. It might be better merged with the earlier section "Criticism of the question", since that is what it now covers.-gadfium 09:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied with it the way it is now--it is better relying heavily on direct quotes from sources. You are right that those claiming the results to be ambiguous are criticising the referendum, but this is a very specific problem. It is like the difference between legislating and adjudicating. While the referendum is taking place, criticisms may occur to sway the vote. However, once the voting is over, the question of meaning remains. I also think that there are different voices out there who have opinions both ways. Best to give those who think the referendum is clear a place outside the criticism section.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Include public figures?

Is it worth including public figures such as Judy Bailey, Simon Barnett and Robyn Malcolm who endorse the two sides of the debate? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That should have been the question I asked myself. The media make a thing of it but of course that does not mean that we have to include it here. We could add them for the sake of completeness or we could wait until the debate involving public figures becomes a bit more notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic stats

For your interest article traffic stats can be viewed here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Article title

This page should be renamed. The term "corporal punishment" doesn't occur in the referendum question at all. Depending on how you view the question the referendum could be described as:

• The New Zealand referendum on smacking, 2009
• The New Zealand referendum on good parental correction, 2009
• The New Zealand referendum on criminalisation of smacking, 2009
• The New Zealand referendum on criminalisation of good parental correction, 2009

I think any name necessarily expresses a view on the question. The current page focuses on the "smacking" side and ignores the "criminal offence" side. The only neutral solutions I can think of are:

• Should a smack as part of good parent correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand (i.e. the referendum wording)
• New Zealand citizens-initiated referendum 2009 (the title used on official sites)

Actually, now having written this out it seems so clear to me that the official title should be used that I'm keen to be bold and move the page. I'll hold back though to hear other opinions on it. Should there be a comma between referendum and 2009? Surely the correct punctuation has a hyphen between citizens and initiated since citizens qualifies initiated not referendum. Should it be all lower-case or should the c, i and r be in upper case?

Ben Arnold (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right that there should be a hyphen between "citizens" and "initiated". None of the official references seems to include it. How agreeable to find someone else who still understands about English syntax. Alarics (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The full correct title that you want could be New Zealand citizens-initiated referendum, 2009 (no capitals except NZ, comma included). Adabow (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The election results site calls it the 2009 Citizens Initiated Referendum [1] so maybe we should too? Mattlore (talk)

No, to stay in line with other elections and referendums we need to call it "Title name blah blah, 2009". Adabow (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But, what about citizens' ? The initiative and referendum both belong to the citizens. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just thought about other referendums – they follow the format: "New Zealand [subject] referendum, [year]". Adabow (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the subject bit that is open to question and to POV accusations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then, but don't call it the citizens-initiated referendum, corporal punishment or smacking in the title seems good (I know it's not the "anti-smacking" law, but 'smacking' is the subject of the question). Adabow (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How's that for a great unabashed push for POV ? Amazing! Elections New Zealand calls it Citizens Initiated Referendum no less that four times on their website here. That's neutral enough, but you want to introduce blatant POV, giving the opinion that "corporal punishment or smacking in the title seems good". I would prefer Wikipedia to be accurate and NPOV, and agree with the suggested title, New Zealand citizens-initiated referendum 2009. Totally and unambiguously NPOV. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "New Zealand citizens-initiated referendum 2009" or "2009 Citizens Initiated Referendum" would be more suitable titles than the current one. I don't think it matters that previous referendums didn't follow the same format. Their titles are not controversial.-gadfium 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "2009 Citizens Initiated Referendum" is succinct, neutral and unambiguous. I'll do a move in the morning. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers everyone and good work! Ben Arnold (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

results by electorate map

I've updated the image of results by electorate; I just have the problem that there is a green=yes, red=no key in the box that I don't need (all are "no", so it isn't very useful in itself). Help please :) 01:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridcully Jack (talk • contribs)

It's automatically created by Template:Infobox Referendum rejected with map, one solution would be to change that template, adding a parameter to optionally add the yes/no legend below the map (with the parameter default = add, so as to not change other articles which call the template). There are sandbox templates to practice on if you want (Template:X1 - Template:X9). XLerate (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)