It’s a safe bet that 99.99 percent of the 300,000 people who signed a petition seeking a referendum on the “anti-smacking” law would not dream of smacking their children. They are caring parents or grandparents who deeply resent the State’s relentless intrusion into their private lives and, in particular, how they raise the kids for whom the public (and the State) holds them responsible.

Being told how to behave at home by Sue Bradford and her fellow travellers was what truly got up their noses and compelled them to sign the petition.

Faced with this shock reaction to a loony law, Bradford and her supporters now loudly complain about the cost of a referendum, instead of honestly debating their pet question, because they know that a well-deserved thrashing from the electorate is virtually guaranteed. She already knows about disapproval, having failed to gain the co-leadership of a party that had the sense to realise she would be the Kiss of Death at the ballot box.

They spuriously issue red herrings and calculate how many ambulances or schoolbooks could be bought with the money. They raise Obfuspeak as a reason for calling it off (even though that is impossible), saying the question is badly worded. But they were not around to protest about Labour’s badly-worded Electoral Finance Act, or the other flawed legislation to which the rest of us have fallen victim…

Bradford: Surprisingly aggressive for someone who opposes violence
Bradford: Surprisingly aggressive for someone who opposes violence
The referendum question is neither ambiguous nor rhetorical and those who challenge it have not explained why it might be, in terms that an average student of English could consider. More than 300,000 grown-ups wouldn’t have put their names to that petition if they had not understood what they were signing up to. Unless, of course, Bradford’s supporters are suggesting that the petitioners cannot read, or understand a simple sentence, or are simply less intelligent than them. Bradford now raises questions about all the questions in all referenda, despite the fact that no government has ever taken any notice of the result of any referendum. Her premature draft Bill to put a stop to such referenda more properly belongs on somebody’s Pudenda Agenda.

The cost of this referendum is estimated at $9 million – a pittance for what will turn out to be a farce conducted under the guise of democracy. Nobody knows how much money was wasted on the Bain trial, but it must have approached $6 million. You didn’t hear a word from the Bradford lobby about that waste of public money. Instead, you just hear moans about the money allegedly paid in legal aid to Bain’s main supporter, Joe Karam – and they come from similarly vindictive “believers” who cannot stomach a result that does not suit them.

Opponents of this referendum take the same sneering approach as the Bain-haters, and they appear to be supported by mainstream politicians who are now rapidly heading for the hills.

In older, wiser, and more prosperous Switzerland, referenda are a fundamental part of the grass-roots democratic process. Here, they are a transparent sham.

John Key and Phil Goff say that they are unlikely to vote in the referendum. They will not be missed, although the clear inference from both is that they consider this legally enshrined and constantly abused democratic right to be not only worthless; it threatens their personal and rigidly exclusive power bases. Fortunately, the more Bradford and her entourage rail against the referendum, the greater chance there will be a high turnout that could force politicians to pay a bit more attention to the people.

What we can bet on for sure is that, once the result is in, no politician of any colour will do anything about it. They will sit on their hands, just as they have done on every previous referendum result. They will say that it is perfectly lawful to stage a referendum based on a question that was not impartial; they can and will justify inaction on this basis alone.


But it will be clear to everyone that not only are politicians intent on interfering with our lives and arguing about semantics in democratically justified referenda that they could have easily renegotiated with the petition organisers, long before the vote; they do not give a damn about public opinion. Democracy is owned and managed by them for three years at a time, and we only get a look-in on one day.

They are, in fact, the true wasters and the rest of us are the losers.

Once this referendum is over and the result is buried, and voters’ confidence in the system is further undermined, we can all look forward to the next one, when the question may be:

“Should a very, very loud shout as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”