• convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum,So, what happened last time? Why did we spend all that money and effort on a question that made no sense?
• ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.
This time, at least, Mr Baldock's purpose is clear: "Should Citizens Initiated Referenda seeking to repeal or amend a law be binding?" He wants a CIR about CIRs, a meta-CIR if you will. Having failed to bully the Government into overturning the "anti-smacking" legislation by means of a referendum which almost half the elecorate ignored, he wants to make his silly stunts mandatory. Before us, we see a political landscape of constant referenda, on any subject which irks Mr Baldock and his miserable band of Christian Rightists. Doubtless, he would try again to have the Prostitution Reform Act abolished; doubtless too, he or others like him would try to have abortion made illegal and capital punishment revived.
It may be worth noting that we live in one of the world's most democratic countries, with short-term Parliaments elected by proportional representation. Despite this, the Christian Right's attempts to establish a bloc in Parliament have failed, because the electorate do not want that sort of thing. So Mr Baldock wants to force his odious views through by binding referenda on questions that he sets, aided by the forces of talkback radio and the grumpy old men who dominate public opinion.
I wish he would go away.