The first reaction of some to this news may be, oh no! Not another one.
I want to say that I completely understand that reaction. I felt the same way when the idea first popped into my head. However, because of the Prime Minister’s refusal to change the new law I really think we have no choice. We must continue the campaign to get the anti-smacking law changed, but now also to change the way our democracy functions so that this sort of travesty never happens again!

I have worded the question as carefully as I can at this point. It will of course be subject now to submissions from anyone in the country leading to a process of review between the Clerk and myself as the proposer of the question.

It is not my intention to propose a complete change from Representative Democracy to Direct Democracy.
What I am proposing is an attempt to introduce a restraint upon the abuse of power that can occur by the Executive branch of our system of government to balance the fact that New Zealand has neither a written Constitution nor a second chamber like a House of Lords or a Senate.

I do not think making all such referenda binding would be a good idea, though it would be worthwhile to require Parliament to at least debate the ones that were supported by a majority of voters and to also require a select committee to report to Parliament on any proposals that were put forward by a Citizens Initiated Referendum within a certain time frame after the referendum was successfully conducted.

I do however think referenda should be binding when they relate to a law or part of a law that Parliament has debated, and passed, and the general population does not support. These policy proposals are the ideas behind the Kiwi Party referenda policies which anyone can view on our website.

I have several reasons why this could and should work within our current democratic arrangements, and I hope I can answer most of the objections now being raised to the idea.

If I were successful in collecting sufficient signatures within a twelve-month period as required by the CIR 1993 Act to force this proposed referendum I would hand them into the Clerk of the House sometime around September or October 2010. It can then take up to a maximum of two months for the Clerk of the House to certify that I have the correct number of certified signatures. This would then mean the Referendum would be required to be held by the law sometime between December 2010 and December 2011 which would mean almost certainly at the 2011 elections due in late 2011. Of course the Prime Minister for political reasons could decide to hold the referendum anytime in 2011 separate from the elections, but he would then have to justify the extra expense, and could not postpone it after the elections as Helen Clark did in 2008.

The Prime Minister has announced the government will hold a binding referendum on MMP at the 2011 elections so the cost of adding an additional referendum question will be minimal.

I believe it will be worthwhile that at the same time as the country is also discussing and debating the MMP referendum, voters will be able to have their say about whether parliament should be accountable to it’s electors through a CIR.
Political parties contesting the elections will no doubt be asked by voters to give their responses as to how they would propose to respond to a majority yes vote in my Referendum, as well as the changes perhaps proposed in the MMP one.

At the time of the elections in 2011 the anti-smacking 87.4% no vote will still be remembered by most voters and the new question being put to voters will keep the pressure on the Prime Minister and the National government to respond.

There is some hope perhaps, though a small one I admit, that by late November or early December this year when we start collecting signatures the PM might come to his senses and realise that we are serious about succeeding in forcing this Referendum and that it would be best if he addressed the problems with the ‘Anti-smacking law’ now instead of later.

Who really knows what the Prime Minister will do, I don’t have a crystal ball?
I do not know how long it will take before we are successful in seeing the law changed and the result of the Referendum respected by Parliament, I only know that I intend to keep working to achieve that victory. The serious consequences of this law the Prime Minister himself has now called a “dogs breakfast” must be avoided by its repeal or amendment for the sake of our future families in this country.

It is not uncommon for the process of getting something changed to be a very long one, and seldom is it quick and easy. The great campaigner of the 19th century William Wilberforce took 20 years for his law abolishing the slave trade to be passed by parliament and then another 26 years to abolish slavery altogether. I certainly hope our struggle is not that long!

I am fully aware that with our current referenda arrangements there are no guarantee of success in anything, but I do believe opportunities exist within the CIR 1993 Act which give opportunities to have an influence on situations that we believe are wrong. I again hope many thousands of Kiwis will join with me in making change possible.

Finally, I want to offer some clarity on the party political situation. I am launching this petition under the banner of a ‘Kiwi Campaign4Democracy.’

I am the leader of the Kiwi Party and that political party gives its full support to this petition for a Referendum. However as in the last petition, many people will give assistance in collecting signatures and I do not want to make anyone feel they have to be a member or supporter of the Kiwi Party in order to join in the democratic campaign to restore sensible authority to parents across the country.

In the process of collecting signatures for the Anti-smacking referendum petition we were ably assisted by members and MPs of the ACT, NZ First, Greens, National, United Future, Pacific, NZ Republic, NZ Democrats and the Family Party to name those I was aware of.  That did not mean all those parties had official policies of support for a yes or no vote, but individuals within those parties either officially or unofficially helped in many important ways to ensure the success of the petition.

Sadly however, no party that was successful in gaining MPs in Parliament in the last elections made respecting the result of the Referendum a bottom line in their negotiations to form a Government.

In 2011 I hope there are more parties than just the Kiwi Party that will announce the repeal of the Anti-smacking law as a bottom line, and perhaps the result of this new Referendum also. Before that can happen, there is much work to be done. I hope that by organising the petition efforts under the Kiwi Campaign4Democracy this will enable the building of a broad coalition of supporters from across the country and the political landscape to achieve the success of another important Referendum.

Larry Baldock
Petition proposer.