Sue Bradford has been one of the worst politicians that this nation has ever had the misfortune of enduring in Parliament. She was the architect – if you can call her that – of the now infamous and incredibly unpopular “anti-smacking” legislation. The reality is that her grasp of law, its meaning, implications and its structure is such that she almost certainly didn’t write it. On the other hand, the lack of clarity and apparent conflict within the law also suggests that she had input, so who knows?
I still vividly recall when she came down to Dunedin to discuss the anti-smacking Bill at public meetings. As people explained the legal ramifications of the Bill, her blank stares and bizarre replies made quie a few people freeze in a moment of terror: This law maker has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about.
Today she anounced her departure from the House. Thank God. It’s a time when people feel obliged to flatter her, lie, and tell the mdeia that she made great contributions and that she acted in the best interests of families and those she cared about. There is no such obligation. Mrs Bradford made no such positive contributions, she did not act in the best interests of families, and the fact that she believed otherwise does not make things better. It is not a redeeming fact that “at least she was doing what she thought was best for people.” No. The fact that she believed in mammoth power transfers from the family to the nanny state, the fact that she entertained the view that it is best for everyone to slaughter the economy in the interests of meeting environmental protocols that larger economies themselves do not meet is evidence of just how confused, morally unwell, and unfit she really was to serve in the first place.
I am very pleased that she is leaving. The only regret in her departure is that it isn’t retroactive, which leaves us with the mess she created while in Parliament.