Elspeth McLean has hit upon the idea of staging a citizens initiated referendum for the benefit of "incompetent home sewers". Whatever can she mean?
These wintry days, when I blunder virtuously about adorned with many layers of clothing in the half dark, I think heady thoughts, possibly a result of the brain overheating in my woolly hat.
I'm not bitter, you understand.
I know it is better for everybody if I don't burn coal and so I forego the heat, as well as much of the light I used to get from the old-style light bulbs.
I am only disappointed that in future it will still be possible to get non-energy saving bulbs for my sewing machine.
I worry that if we stop importing clothes from China, at some time there may be a requirement for me to attack some unsuspecting piece of material by attempting to sew it.
There should be a law against such torture.
I plan to form a question with a yes/no answer so I can gather petition signatures as a prerequisite for a citizens initiated referendum.
My question could be: "Should sales of new light bulbs for sewing machines be restricted to lessen the risk of the incompetent home sewer damaging innocent pieces of material?"
Oh, I know some of you will get picky about that wording.
You will snigger about the use of the words "incompetent home sewer", jumping, dare I say it, in a fourth form way, to the conclusion it has something to do with blocked toilets overflowing into the back garden.
And, "damaging innocent pieces of material" - what does that mean, I hear you ask.
It means whatever you want it to.
That's the beauty of the citizens initiated referendum.
It is a way of wasting the tax-payers' money to make yourself feel good without it necessarily having to mean anything.
After all, the results are non-binding on any government, so the more obscure the question, the more ridiculous the answers and the more readily the government of the day can quite rightly ignore the whole futile business.
Who remembers the last referendums, the two on election day, 1999? One asked: "Should the size of the House of Representatives be reduced from 120 members to 99 members?"
Of those who cast valid votes, 81.5% said "yes".
Did it make any difference? Of course not. There are 121 MPs in the current Parliament.
The other referendum question that year was a wonderful example of woolliness.
It was: "Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?"
Almost 92% of the valid votes for that were in favour, but what they were in favour of is somewhat hard to tell.
And so it is with the latest proposal for a citizens initiated referendum.
The question, should the thing get off the ground, will be, "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Can't we lay this foolishness to rest?
What is a smack? Is it a light tap on the bottom with an open hand which does not leave any telltale fingermarks?
Would a patched gang member agree with that definition?
What is good parental correction?
I know people who consider themselves good parents who think washing a child's mouth out with soap and water, supposedly to stop them swearing, is OK.
I don't. Who is right?
When should smacking, however you define it, as part of "good parental correction" begin? When the child is just born, six months old, a year?
Information from the police indicates parents have not been hounded and prosecuted for minor misdemeanours as a result of the removal from the Crimes Act, in May last year, of the defence of reasonable force to correct a child.
Have petition signatories forgotten there was an amendment, agreed to by Prime Minister Helen Clark and National's leader, John Key, saying the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence is considered inconsequential?
It's a discretion they appear to be using.
People who continue to believe there is a huge problem with this legislation seem to be in la-la land.
Perhaps they should ask themselves how reasonable their question would sound if we did a bit of word substitution.
How about: "Should a smack as part of good husband/wife/partner/employee correction be a criminal offence?" Or: "Should a smack as part of good animal training be a criminal offence?"
Or: "Should a smack as part of good teacher correction of school/early childhood pupils be a criminal offence?"It makes my sewing machine light bulb question look highly intelligent.
Sign my petition.
You know it makes sense.
I only need 10% of eligible electors.
Fabrics of the future will thank you for it.
Elspeth Mclean is a Dunedin writer.
