The NZ Herald, the other day, published an article on marriage redefinition submissions to the select committee, that was mathematically incorrect. In the Herald article, it was written:
They should have said, of the 'non-unique submissions 10,487 were in favour and 8148 against', because using their numbers, if you add 10,387 to 8148, you get the difference between 21,533 total submissions and 2898 supposedly unique submissions. At no point do they tell you that of the unique submissions what the breakdown was of for and against the redefinition of marriage, and so those who just quickly read the article without checking the numbers given would have been left with a false impression. Was this an accidental error?
Except that what is even stranger, the numbers from the Ministry of Justice analysis of the submissions are different:
Items of note are that of the form submission, many more were in favour of redefinition than against (60-40%).
Of the unique submissions, more were against redefinition than for (55-45%).
The committee received 21,533 submissions on the bill, 2898 of which had unique content.
Of the submissions, 10,487 were in favour and 8148 against.
They should have said, of the 'non-unique submissions 10,487 were in favour and 8148 against', because using their numbers, if you add 10,387 to 8148, you get the difference between 21,533 total submissions and 2898 supposedly unique submissions. At no point do they tell you that of the unique submissions what the breakdown was of for and against the redefinition of marriage, and so those who just quickly read the article without checking the numbers given would have been left with a false impression. Was this an accidental error?
Except that what is even stranger, the numbers from the Ministry of Justice analysis of the submissions are different:
Overview of submissions on the Bill
4. The Committee received 19,874 submissions from individuals, groups and organisations. The Committee deemed 2,530 submissions to be unique submissions, and these were analysed by the Ministry of Justice.
5. Most of the unique submissions were from individuals representing their personal views (90 percent).
6. Two hundred and twenty submitters made oral presentations in support of their submissions in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. While not all submitters wishing to make an oral presentation were heard, the Committee heard from a representative range of submitters, both opposed to and supporting the Bill.
7. Although there was a large volume of submissions, the range of issues traversed was relatively narrow, reflecting the focus of the Bill.
8. A small majority of unique submissions (55 percent) were opposed to the Bill. The overwhelming majority of those expressing opposition to the Bill did so on the basis of strongly held religious convictions about the nature of marriage and on moral grounds.
9. Those unique submissions supporting the Bill (45 percent) emphasised the need to uphold human rights and reduce discrimination.
10. A very small minority of submitters (18) did not state a view either in support or opposition to the Bill (e.g.provided neutral legal opinion).
11. Of the 17,344 form submissions received, 60 percent were in support of the Bill, and 40 percent were opposed to the Bill.
Items of note are that of the form submission, many more were in favour of redefinition than against (60-40%).
Of the unique submissions, more were against redefinition than for (55-45%).
Comments
Post a Comment
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.