Untangling the smacking referendum

Email
Print

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:00a.m.

Campbell Live untangles the smacking debate and looks at how to approach the referendum

Campbell Live untangles the smacking debate and looks at how to approach the referendum

The smacking referendum is costing taxpayers nine million dollars, despite being non-binding and dismissed by senior politicians as well as the Prime Minister.

The hotly disputed referendum question has sparked Sue Bradford to propose to Parliament a private member’s bill, which will prevent poorly worded referendums surfacing in the future.

Despite public outcry to the referendum, 310,000 people signed a petition calling for it in the first place.

Campbell Live examines the pros and cons of the referendum, asking whether the question is viable and if anything can be done to change it.

The show also looks at what alternatives the nine million dollars could have been spent on, such as buying back 10 percent of the police fleet that is looking to be scrapped or increasing the country’s number of teachers by 200.


 

 

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

11 Aug 2009 03:08p.m.

Kat wrote:

My Mum works for Barnadoes and all Barnadoes employees received a letter saying they weren't allowed to vote 'No' in the referendum. I think this is appalling, these industries are acting on the same level as Mugabe.

23 Jun 2009 06:07a.m.

Peter James wrote:

Now i know this isn't PC ..

SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD HUSBANDRY CORRECTION. BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN NZ..


SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD PARENTAL
CORRECTION. BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN NZ..

Now i will say .
some of us didn't/ dont need a law to tell us it was/is wrong to beat our wives, ladies, lovers. or anyone..
but oviously some doo....

some of us didn't/dont need a law to tell us it was/is wrong to beat/bully / intimidate / and abandon our children,
but obviously some doo..looks like many do.

and clearly some of us dont need a law to stop us taking so much.
that that taking and greed..
is causing poverty violence and child murder..

but clearly many do.



20 Jun 2009 08:15p.m.

Doug wrote:

Its sad to see $9 million spent on this. The "anti smacking" law should never have been passed as it was clear it had little public support. If the referendum had been part of the general election it would have cost little but Labour didn't want to look bad. I can't see why the question is ambiguous. This ambiguity it smacks of an excuse by JK and SB to avoid the real issue if the result is yes.