Binding referenda not a good idea - Key

Cynical: I think then that we both agree that
there should be greater severity in criminal justice
policy. I support protest marches, petitions, parliamentary
submissions, joining public advocacy groups (ie SST) and using the ballot box to get rid of MPs if they don't meet whatever public policy standards that the electorate expects.

Craig Young - following your postings on several other issues, I would like to say just one more thing about democracy and referenda. I think that you take the word "binding" too far. The way I see it is for a referendum to tell politicians that a particular law needs attention. When 88% of the people indicate that they are not happy with that law, it would seem that it needs to be revisited. If politicians ignore the will of the people, it will no longer be a democracy - we are then heading towards a totalitarian state, slowly bit surely.
I am not going to argue about what country we should follow - everyone has different ideas what works best - what about following New Zealand can do, without blindly copying any other system. The Dutch claim the best, no the Scandinavians, no the Americans, ...etc etc But they all came to live here, not stay or go to the utopia claimed. Why? There is no utopia yet, otherwise we will all go there.
A referendum is a tool to help with the democratic process - throwing it away will mean that nobody will want to vote in a referendum ever again, even if the Government of the day wants to hold one. It is up to the government to get the best possible results from that information, so that society can rely on democracy, knowing that the government is doing its best to correct the ailing law. Call it adjustments to keep the wheels of Justice for instance turning smoothly. If the adjustments are not made, then eventually the wheels will fall off. That will lead to a breakdown of society.

What is wrong with the idea of a written constitution as a counterbalance to excessive parliamentary activity? Canada seems to be doing quite well with one. Why shouldn't we go down the same road as a fellow Commonwealth state?

Just to clarify, too- I fully support victims rights legislation and greater sentencing severity. None of this is relevant to this debate.

As a matter of interest, I am fully in accord
with most of the Sensible Sentencing Trust's
calls for greater severity in criminal justice
policy. However, I believe this should be
acoomplished through legislative reform, not
pointless referenda.

We live in a shrinking economy. We cannot have both
regular referenda and operate a stringent and severe
criminal justice policy. Correctional facilities need
money to be constructed, staffed and continue to operate. I'd much rather have the greater severity without the referenda, thanks.

Interesting debate. Democracy is the will of the many over the will of the few, simple really. In Ireland, the only way the constitution can be altered is by public referendum. Government officials are elected by the people to work with and for the good of the people, not to tell its people what is good for them. A referendum if called indicates a split in public opinion over an issue that requires rectifying and irrespective of the public's knowledge, education, or reasoning behind voting yes or no, we must still remember that it is a democracy that governs, the will of the many over the will of the few. If we are going to have the expense of a referendum why on earth would you dismiss the results if it is going to make the sitting government more popular by appearing to listen to the people who elected them. We Kiwi's are funny people indeed.

Heycynical - You do not get it, do you? I very much understand what Craig Young is saying. Trouble is, you do not understand what I am saying. You obviously disagree that the first right is to live, and to live unassaulted. Then, you go on to say that 88% of the population is too stupid to understand that right. That airing of being superior to most people is in fact one of the most dangerous things in the history of mankind. What you are seeking is a dictatorship.

The fact you can't understand what Craig is saying is exactly why binding referenda are a bad idea - most people are too stupid to know what it is they're actually doing, which is why we have elected reps to lead.

Craig Young - The moment a criminal gets more Human Rights than a victim is the time mankind has got it wrong. That is the case now, so if your system looks after the Human Rights properly, you should actually support the 88% of the people who want a better Justice system. If you argue that the criminal has got all the Human Rights and the victim is at the bottom of the heap, and has little or no Human Rights (I trust that the first right is the right to live, and live unassaulted), then this discussion thread is over.

Cynical:
Incorrect. If your animus is against the absence of parliamentary accountability, then there should be a written constitution to act as a check or balance to its excesses and rein it in when it steps over the mark.

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the model that we should be following. At least it preserves civil liberties and human rights...unlike BCIRs, which seem to do little but deny the rights of citizenship to others.

Craig Young - you are the one who brings up spelling, which by he way is not the only criterium for intelligence, you state "why don't you sock cons do your homework?"
To me, that all seems to say to me that you do not want to engage with anyone beneath you. You quote Government leaders in democracies as if they were Kings or Dictators, as if there were no other checks in place.
I thought that the debate was about referenda - the word binding is being terribly misused - Governments would like to use referenda from time to time, but if they are not regarded as indicative of the public opinion, then it makes no sense. By holding a referendum then, they shoot themselves in the foot, having already stated that they are not going to take any notice. What nonsense and waste of money has that been over the years, if correct?
An important tool to gauge public opinion is therefore lost - all we have left is elections from time to time - plent of advertising, plenty of rhetoric, and that will do again?
I see a binding referendum as something that tells the politicians that perhaps it is time to write a better law - I know that it is hard to write laws, because the legal profession, like experts will always find a way to justify. The more money you have, the more outrageous your defence can become. But tht is exactly the problem with good parents being charged, for instance - ones with enough money to raise their children but not have to defend themselves at enormous costs, when all they are is good parents. And all that money cannot be spent on their children, not that lawyers care about that. They will argue "that they have done a good job". As far as crime is concerned, all that is needed for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. When 88% of the population feels the same way, it is distinctly wrong to ignore that.