Former Leader of the Opposition Don Brash appeared to think that human rights, like civil union laws, should be subject to referendum. In California, referenda-driven public policy has had destructive effects. One can hope that John Key will quickly move to distance himself from the hardline social conservative voting record of his predecessor. However, I probably don't need to convince the more knowledgeable members of our communities about the abuse of citizens initiated referenda in the United States, against LGBT aspirations for spousal equality, civil unions and same-sex marriage. At the behest of the US Christian Right and its swollen bank balances, twenty-seven states have outlawed the practice. In 1992, Colorado temporarily struck down that state's antidiscrimination coverage for lesbians and gay men, which the US Supreme Court struck down in its turn in 1996. True, Oregon's voluntary euthanasia lobby used the process to bloody the nose of the US Christian Right through preserving its own referenda-driven physician assisted suicide laws in the nineties, but that is a rare exception. Oregon is far less religious than most areas of the United States. But are there other reasons to object to citizens initiated referenda? Yes. Political scientist Peter Schrag traced the origins and effects of citizen's referenda in California. Even there, in a liberal/libertarian state, the effects have been malignant. Fiscal conservatives and corporations have abused the process to win exemption from regulation, compromise environmental safeguards, and slash taxation revenue, leaving a gutted public infrastructure. And, while abortion and gay rights are mostly safe from a weakened Californian Christian Right, there have been vicious attacks on the civil liberties, human rights and public service access of so-called illegal immigrants. Consequently, the states standard of living has declined precipitously, and it has become a more repressive and less representative place to live. Far from providing 'direct democracy' as its ideologues maintain, citizens referenda have precipitated a situation where wealthy corporations and well-heeled libertarian right or militant fundamentalist pressure groups have preserved their own special interests, at the cost of social exclusion of others. Given its use to attack same-sex marriage in the United States, LGBT New Zealanders need to remember that while we don't have binding citizens initiated referenda in this country; the Leader of the Opposition is a 'useful idiot' for similar fringe elements within New Zealand society. Human rights and civil liberties should be inalienable basic hallmarks of a democratic and pluralist society, preferably preserved within a written constitution and impervious to extremist ideologues and their divisive sectarian and partisan aspirations. While we can do nothing to change this situation while New Zealand First is represented in Parliament, that need not be the case forever. It is time that we contemplated repeal of this threat to our representative democratic institutions and social justice so it cannot later damage those same institutions. Recommended: David Broder: Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money: Harvest Books: 2001. Richard Ellis: Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America: University of Kansas Press: 2002. Peter Schrag: Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future? New York: New Press: 1998. Peter Schrag: "Take the Initiative, Please: Referenda Madness in California:" American Prospect (1996): http://www.prospect.org/print/V7/28/schrag-p.html Craig Young - 24th November 2006