It’s referendum time.

But the referendum question has been troubling me. Who really knows what it means?

I believe we need something a bit clearer. Maybe like this:

Should a smack, when administered in circumstances that are not already expressly permitted under the Crimes Act 1961, and where the circumstances are such that the recipient of the smack is not left bruised, cut or marked, where the smack is administered in a moderate way so as to cause no serious hurt to the recipient, in circumstances where the person administering the smack is not hitting out of simple frustration or anger but rather out of a desire to correct wayward or errant behaviour, where the smack does not constitute part of a pattern of more systematic abuse (where a series of smacks, while moderate in and of themselves, would, when taken collectively, constitute abuse), where the person administering the smack has considered other means of correction or punishment for the said wayward or errant behaviour but has (having taken consideration of all facts reasonably available to that person given the particular circumstances of the case) determined that the said means are inappropriate, where none of the following means of administering the smack are used or applied: fists, claws, broken bottles, paddles, whips, and other non-human means of intervention (including, without limitation, frozen poultry); and in circumstances where the said smack is administered by the recipient’s parent or caregiver, be regarded as a breach of the Crimes Act 1961, thereby entitling the full apparatus of the State to be brought against the person administering the smack? (breathe…)

Shall I start the petition process?