Adoption process is too long at animal shelters. Depression is not a disease. Electric cars are going to harm the environment.
Posted by Pete George on October 25, https: Martin has been a member of the New Zealand First Party since She dropped to party 3 when Ron Mark challenged her and took over as deputy. She is expected to become a Cabinet Minister in the incoming government. NZ First have promote referenda as a way of allowing the public to decide — from their Social Development policy: The have proposed a number of referenda.
Europe's leading human rights organisation has criticised France for failing to ban parents from smacking their children, reigniting a controversial debate. Smacking children is the best form of attheheels.com what extent do you agree or disagree? (56) Governments should spend money on railways rather than attheheels.com what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement. Three Reasons Why Smoking Should Be Banned. by NORMA CHEW Aug. 14, Norma Chew. Norma Chew is a retired registered nurse who has been a freelance writer since Chew's articles have appeared in the "Journal of the Association of Operating Room Nurses" (AORN), "Point of View Magazine" and "Today's OR Nurse." Chew has a master's degree.
Winston Peters promised a referendum on the Maori seats in the recent election campaign, although it looks like that has been lost in negotiations with Labour. It would be surprising if Labour or Greens supported this. During the election campaign Martin explained how she saw referenda being used in an interview at the University of Otago, starting at about Split that off from medicinal marijuana, New Zealand First has already said we support medicinal marijuana through a prescription regime.
Euthanasia was not a topic that was campaigned on at the last election, so how would you have been able to vote on the political party, if you had strong beliefs on that particular topic, how would you have been able to vote for a particular party on that issue, which is a big issue for a nation.
NZ First proposals to radically change our economic system is far more substantial — should any policies changing our economic system go to a referendum? This is an oddly NZ First-centric principle. Why should it only apply to things NZ First has no policy or campaign position on?
My also hope is that it might actually make feel connected too. I believe that you have the same intelligence that anybody sitting in that House has, and so you should see the piece of legislation, you should get the regulatory impact statement, you should get the full Parliamentary blurb that we get, and then after twelve months you should vote on it.
I think that in principle this is a good idea. I have suggested this sort of process for legalising or decriminalising cannabis — a bill should be passed through the normal parliamentary processes, and then go to the public for ratification or rejection via a referendum.
There are some potential down sides, especially if one referendum is held to put a number of issues to the public.
There could be a lot of material to distribute and to digest. Instead of handing out the full legislation plus regulatory statement and any other blurb perhaps a fair summary should be written and distributed. Those who have the time or inclination could obtain all the material online or request it all to be posted out.
But generally I think that this is a promising approach to contentious issues of public importance, write the legislation and if it passes through Parliament put it too the people for ratification or rejection.
This would encourage our Parliamentarians to write and pass legislation that made sense to the public and addressed public concerns. I think this would work well for both euthanasia and for recreational cannabis use. That would enable a large majority to make a decision that really just affects a relatively small minority.
The use of referendums could be a significant issue in itself this term. Last term the flag referendums were a democratic disaster, with political game playing and deliberate disruption making a mess of the process.
Somehow that has to be avoided in the future. That suggests major change to me. Should any major change to the way we run the country economically or socially be ratified by the public via referenda?Smacking Children Should it be made illegal 16 September Swinburne University Danielle Kowaliw Kaitlyn Willigen Debra Broberg 2.
Introduction Smacking can be defined as to “strike (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand and as punishment” (Oxford Dictionaries ).
Why Smoking Should be Banned Undoubtedly, there will always be subjects of controversy. One example is whether smoking should be banned or not.
Some people completely object to the idea of smoking and think that it should be banned. NFL running back Adrian Peterson’s recent arrest for allegedly abusing his four-year-old son has once again sparked the debate over whether spanking is an appropriate form of discipline.
Why you shouldn't spank your child. Posted on 28 Sep by Kristin Cantu. Posted in Uncategorized. More On: parenting, Research. What started as some light smacking on the arm, escalated to smacking in the face, hard. The last time my father laid a hand on me he blew open my eardrum. I think smacking should be banned because it really really hurts and then if you just get smacked it would probably really hurt and then you would probably get really angry so I think smacking.
Dec 01, · This is quite tricky. But yes I think you should be allowed or at the very least, not banned. Sometimes a good smack on the bottom for a small child is needed for them to face the reality of the situation, also a good smack on the side of your teen sons head is often a great wake up call, as is a nice little hair toss for the princess daughter!Status: Resolved.