He is also disappointed that the issue of the $9-10 million cost of the referendum is being used as an argument against those who have worked to bring about the referendum.

But there are other issues we also need to keep in mind, such as fairness, integrity, and freedom of speech. Those who opposed the so-called "anti-smacking" law are entitled to their view and to express it. In a democracy, they also have a right, some would even say a duty, to challenge a government that passes a law contrary to the will of 80-90 per cent of the people if the polls are to be believed.

As we have said before, constitutionally and legally the New Zealand Government can pass laws contrary to the majority of the people. But the spirit of democracy is undermined in the process. New Zealanders should be concerned about a democracy that works in form but not in substance.

It is not the fault of the pro-referendum group that maintaining democracy costs money, and it is grossly unfair to blame them for the cost of this referendum. In fact, the group tried to have this referendum carried out at the time of the election when it would have cost far less. If anyone could be blamed for this expense, it would have to be the people who stopped it at the time of the election.

When two groups of reasonable people are as log-jammed in an issue such as this, there is often a bigger principle that needs to be uncovered. Until that becomes the main focus the real issue remains unsolved. In this case it is probably the need to recognise the limitations of legislation and focus on identifying the real causes of child abuse. Member of Parliament Sue Bradford has said the bill was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse and violence to children in New Zealand, and cases since the law was changed suggest that this is so.