Anti-smacking referendum timing in Parliament’s hands

June 25th, 2008

H Clark’s arrogance could be countered by a vote in Parliament.

As the DomPost reports it – "Asked yesterday why [the referendum] could not be held alongside the election, which must be held by November 15, Miss Clark replied: "Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible."

Parliament could call her on her contemptible lie. Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, if:

(a) a general election must be held on a date that is within 12 months after the date on which the indicative referendum petition is presented to the House of Representatives (because of section 17 of the Constitution Act 1986); and

(b) the House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.

(6) In the circumstances described in subsection (5), the indicative referendum is held on polling day.

That is an ordinary 50% majority vote.

The Speaker must present the petition to the House "forthwith" after the Clerk certifies it.That must happen within 2 months of its resubmission.

It is unlikely that the lying Prime Minister can prevent Parliament from getting a chance to vote on the poll timing, by ending this Parliament early, unless she’s planning a surprise early election.

Bring it on.

Filed under Constitutional, Criminal Justice, Politics

Comments

One factor might sway her would be to charge the 10 million against the Labour Party’s election expenses?

The Speaker must present the petition to the House “forthwith” after the Clerk certifies it.That must happen within 2 months of its resubmission.

The Clerk must certify it within two months. The presentation may (and almost certainly will) occur after the two months is up.

Because Parliament is in recess for a couple of weeks at the end of the two month period for certification, even if the Clerk finishes two weeks early, the presentation won’t happen until August 26.

This still would provide enough time for any concurrent referendum/election to be held on any Saturday in October or November.

I think it is delicious that Helen Clark wouldn’t be in this position right now, if John Key and Peter Dunne hadn’t got the law passed with by their amendment.

If they had allowed her to force it through with Labour, we’d still be in the same position but it would be totally against Helen and Labour.
Absolutely Delicious……

As it is we can look to John Key too for this abortion of a bill.
His hands are just as dirty as hers.
Whether the MSM will pick this up I don’t know.
Probably not, as they want her gone as much as he does.

Personally I think every Kiwi should get off their bottoms and write directly to Helen Clark, the speaker and all the party heads, I am.

All the party heads must all be put on notice that we won’t accept this behaviour and attitude or it’s attendant value set that drives it anymore.
Especially John Key as the probable next Prime Minister.

Would Helen change her position at 1 million letters?
No I don’t think so, her thinking is too corrupt, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do write.
After all it doesn’t cost a stamp.

I wrote to the Dompost this morning, hopefully many more do too.

Dear Sir
It is outrageous that Helen Clark and her Labour Party are going to waste $10 million of our money on a referendum after this years election.
It makes a farce of running a campaign to get us to save on electricity and then waste our money Willy Nilly like this.
What Rubbish when she says “Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible”.

I am sure our Electoral office has plans for running referendums at an election and can slot them in place easily.

The truth is Helen and her Labour Party don’t want to remind 80% of the electorate that they treat us with contempt.
It’s time for regime change.

Mike Mckee
Seatoun