Posts Tagged ‘ACT Party’

PUBLIC MEETING in Hamilton TONIGHT: ‘The way forward on Section 59’

Thursday, October 8th, 2009


‘The way forward on

Section 59′

Tonight in  Hamilton , (and next week in Dargaville) you’re invited to a continuation of a series of meetings around the country….

* Bob McCoskrie – Family First Target Real Child Abuse, Not Real Parents ( HAMILTON ONLY )
* John Boscawen – ACT MP – Promoter of the Boscawen amendment, previously the Chester Borrows amendment
* Larry Baldock – Kiwi Party
– Promoter of the Referendum
Also invited are the local Members of Parliament.

7.30 p.m.
Hamilton Central Baptist Church, 33 Charlemont Street, Hamilton

Monday 12 October, 7.00 p.m.
Dargaville Town Hall, 37 Hokianga Road, DARGAVILLE


Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Meetings coming up

with John Boscawen, Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock


Tauranga, Hamilton, Dargaville, Lower Hutt and Bucklands Beach

We are still working on finalising many aspects of the Campaign4Democracy and therefore do not have our logo and templates for communication ready as yet. This short update will give you some useful information though I trust.

Two weeks ago at the Family Forum hosted by Family First, John Key accepted questions from the floor and you can hear those and his replies by clicking below. Don’t worry about a little feedback noise at the beginning as it comes right after a minute or so. My question to him is about number 3.  John Key Q & A

Two quotes from his answers are interesting.

“There is 13 prosecutions where there has been some form of physical abuse but in those cases the advice I have had is that even if the old sec 59 law was in place those prosecutions would still have taken place.” John Key.

If you are familiar with the cases you will know that this is nonsense, but if his advice was accurate, it begs the obvious question, Why did the law need to be changed then?

“All I can tell you is if we went back and changed the law this is what I think would happen. There would be a very intense debate in NZ and those that are opposed to smacking could run a very ferocious campaign and at the end of that process right or wrong, some people would feel quite differently about it.” John Key

This quote indicates that the PM is well aware of how violent, intolerant and agressive the non-violent positive parenting types can be when they don’t get their own way. A bit like children really!

More meetings coming up with John Boscawen, Bob McCoskrie and myself will be;
Tauranga Monday 5 October, 7.30 p.m at the Redwood Room, Bureta Park Motor Inn, Otumoetai

Hamilton Thursday 8 October, 7.30 p.m at Hamilton Central Baptist Church 33 Charlemont Street.

Dargaville Monday 12 October 7.30 p.m Venue TBA (not including Bob)

Lower Hutt Thursday 15 October 7.30 p.m Venue TBA

Bucklands Beach Monday 19 October 7.30 p.m Venue TBA

Perhaps you can recomend them to your friends if they live in those areas.
Warm regards,

Larry Baldock


If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Public meeting in Christchurch tonight 21 September 2009

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Hi All,

Public meeting in Christchurch concerning the Anti-Smacking Law, see below for details.

Unity for Liberty encourages all folk to attend these public meetings when they are in your area, I attended the first meeting in Auckland and found it extremely rewarding.

If you are able could you please forward these details on to any friends who may be in the area.


Craig Hill


We have organised our next Public Meeting;

John Boscawen has challenged Clayton Cosgrove to attend. 27000 voted No in his electorate of Waimakariri and 16000 voted for him in the last General election… John is also inviting Kate Wilkinson, the National List MP.

The details are

Monday 21 September, 7.30 p.m. St. Bede’s College, Performing Arts Centre, 210 Main North Road, Papanui, Christchurch City


John Boscawen, ACT M.P., David Garrett, ACT M.P., Larry Baldock, Leader of the Kiwi Party and Referendum Organiser. Other speakers to be advised.

For details of future meetings


Or phone 09 531 5531

Meeting in Mt Roskill Monday night 7 September 2009 – 7:30pm

Saturday, September 5th, 2009
Meeting in Mt Roskill Monday night


The way

The way forward on

Section 59

Hi everyone, if you are in the Auckland area your support at this meeting this Monday night would be greatly appreciated,

Regards Larry

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen will host a public meeting to discuss Section 59 of the Crimes Act –  the so called ‘anti-smacking law’ – the recent referendum results, and his Private Member’s Bill recently drawn from the Ballot which seeks to amend Section 59, making a smack for the purpose of correction, no longer illegal.

All media are invited to Hay Park School, 670 Richardson Road, Mt Roskill from 7:30pm, Monday September 7 2009 to hear presentations from guest speakers:
Bob McCroskrie – Family First,
Mr Jim Evans – Emeritus Professor of Law at Auckland University
Larry Baldock – Kiwi Party Leader, former MP and organiser of the referendum petition.
Labour Leader and Mt Roskill MP Phil Goff


Mt Roskill Candidate and National MP Jackie Blue have been invited to attend, but are yet to confirm.

Venue: Hay Park School, 670 Richardson Road, Mt Roskill, Auckland.


Date: 7:30pm, Monday, September 7 2009


John Armstrong: National won’t be smacked twice

Monday, August 31st, 2009

John Armstrong: National won’t be smacked twice

4:00AM Saturday Aug 29, 2009
By John Armstrong

No matter what spin the anti-smacking brigade puts on last week’s referendum, the result is still mind-boggling.

The referendum’s opponents have naturally sought to downplay the 88 per cent “no” vote as not unexpected, arguing that people were confused by the referendum question which was anyway heavily loaded to increase the “no” vote, while only 56 per cent of eligible voters actually bothered to return their ballot paper.

However, the turnout was marginally higher than that recorded in the first MMP referendum in 1992.

In some electorates, it was as high as 66 per cent, which is the same level as that registered in the Maori electorates at the last general election and not all that far short of overall turnout, which in recent elections has hovered around the 80 per cent mark.

The assumption of voter ignorance is the typical sort of patronising claptrap used by the liberal elites to conveniently explain away something that disturbs their comfort zones.

Faced with predictions of mass confusion following the introduction of GST in the 1980s, a Labour MP at the time noted most people had no problems filling out a TAB betting slip which was equally complex.

Ditto with the smacking referendum. Voters understood exactly what they were doing. Politicians ignore the outcome at their peril.

Those in National’s senior ranks are most definitely taking note. The highest “no” votes were registered in provincial and rural seats held by that party.

Once it was clear that the turnout was going to be much higher than predicted, the Prime Minister ensured he had a response prepared. This amounted to more monitoring of the existing law to ensure it is working as intended.

That was obviously not going to satisfy the referendum’s organisers, who were seeking the repeal of the relevant section of the Crimes Act.

While Sue Bradford’s amended initiative remains the law, National has taken on board the message from the referendum that voters are drawing a line in the sand against any more measures which might be termed liberal, socially progressive or nanny state-ish.

In marked contrast, National’s reform agenda for the economy and social service delivery is meeting little resistance. For example, Bill English has now mentioned on several occasions three dreaded words that usually spell political death – “capital gains tax” – without his world caving in.

That is not to say the Finance Minister is about to bring in such a tax.

But the lack of opposition is emboldening the Government to move faster on the economic front than it might otherwise have done, another example being National’s willingness to allow mining of minerals on parts of the Department of Conservation estate.

National’s shift to the right in such policy areas is one reason there is less concern within the party about Act’s current muscle-flexing over the anti-smacking law and Maori seats on the Auckland “Super City” Council.

Act is clearly seeking to fill a gap left on the right by John Key’s relationship-building with Maoridom and his unwillingness to ditch the anti-smacking law.

If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter is proof there is a God – and that he or she has a sense of humour.

How else to explain the private member’s bill promoted by Act’s John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a “light” smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament’s order paper for debate.

The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member’s bills – plus the timing just days after the referendum result – suggested divine intervention.

The Prime Minister is said to have been torn initially between voting down Boscawen’s bill and allowing it to go as far as being scrutinised by a select committee.

The referendum result weighed heavily on Key’s mind. However, it is understood that colleagues who had previously been supportive of legalising smacking argued for Boscawen’s bill to be killed as swiftly as possible.

They and Key did not want the public distracted by what would have been a lengthy sideshow as MPs grappled with the complexities of defining what was acceptable and not acceptable in terms of a “light” smack.

National is relaxed about Act getting a pay-off in the polls from Hide appearing principled by saying he would resign his Local Government portfolio rather than steer legislation through Parliament with which he could not agree.

Act has struggled to register above 1.5 per cent support since the election, while backing for National is up to 10 percentage points higher than the party got at the ballot box last year.

While Act appears to have decided to be less supine in its four-way relationship with National, the Maori Party and United Future, it has to ensure it does not overreach itself and become the docked tail wagging a very large National dog…….

To read  the rest go to:


Monday, August 31st, 2009

31 August, 2009

Well, I thought you would have all had enough press releases and heard and seen enough of me in the media last week that another CIR update until now would not have been necessary.
However, now we do need to answer the question, where to from here?

I will be busy preparing this week for our Kiwi Party Conference this Saturday in Christchurch and I would be greatly encouraged to have any of you join us there. For details click here Conference details and registration.

You may recall my comments in response to criticism over my involving the Kiwi Party in the referendum around the time of the elections last year, when I said that ultimately the only way we will get the law changed is if we have 61 MPs elected that will be prepared to vote to change it. I think that reality may now be clearer.

The drawing of John Boscawen’s members bill from the ballot last Wednesday, only one day after the final results of the referendum was amazing. Some media commentators described it as miraculous, or divine intervention, but sadly it seems that more intervention is going to be needed after the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition buried it less than five hours after seeing the light of day.

I have had discussions with a number of people already about possible action and I would very much like to hear your opinions.
Another petition to force a referendum that would have to be held either before or at the next general election would, in my opinion, be the best way forward. Of course this requires an enormous effort and is not something I can do alone as you all know better than anyone.

We are prohibited from seeking another referendum on the same topic by the CIR Act for a period of 5 years, but the issue has now become one of democracy in the minds of the 87.4% that voted ‘no,’ so perhaps we should use a question like “should a referendum seeking to change a law already passed by parliament be binding?”

The press release I sent out today was really a tongue in cheek statement aimed at those who claimed our question was misleading and confusing when they attacked the connection between ‘good parenting’ and ‘smacking.’
When you have to explain a joke it probably means it wasn’t as funny as you thought!

On Friday I will be running some radio ads nationwide to say thanks to all those who participated in the referendum and made the no vote so successful. I will seek feedback from everyone through the website on some of the possible responses we can make to the Prime Ministers rejection of the referendum result.

Because it takes between two and three months to get a CIR petition question approved by the Clerk of the House it may be wise to begin the application as soon as possible even before we have gained sufficient responses to know how much support we have.

I do not want to act alone nor independently, but I know from past experience that sometimes you can’t wait until you have enough volunteers and money before you start out, otherwise nothing gets done.
Please drop me an email if you have any thoughts,

Warm regards,
Larry Baldock
PS. I have just received an invitation to appear on Russel Brown’s TV 7 current affairs show this Thursday evening at 9.10pm for a panel discussion with Brian Edwards. If you want to watch it is free to air TV 7 and Sky digital channel 97.

Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny

By MICHAEL LAWS – Sunday Star Times

Last updated 09:47 30/08/2009

OPINION: Is John Key thick? Or does the prime minister think that we are?

These are the only two possible explanations, after a week in which the National Party leader exposed a hubris that has taken him only nine months to acquire. By contrast, Helen Clark took nine years.

The pro-smacking referendum result of nine days ago was the most significant defeat of Wellington liberalism since McDonald’s ended the reign of “nouvelle cuisine”. And yet Key keeps finding new ways to forestall and frustrate democracy.

His latest effort has been his unilateral declaration that National will not support Act MP John Boscawen’s private member’s bill that seeks to enact the public will on the smacking issue. Why? Because the law is working properly, replied the PM.

Which is a nonsense. Because it is not working at all.

Exhibit one: the 16 dead children – killed by their family/whanau since the passage of Sue Bradford’s anti- smacking bill. Those 16 children are a roll-call of shame and not one of them was saved by parliament’s good intentions.

They will, inevitably, be joined by more child fatalities. From the same predominant ethnic group, and the same appalling underclass. Toxic whanau who will never reference their behaviour by what parliament says or does.

Of the 16 kiddies killed since the passage of this hated legislation, 11 were of Maori background, two Asian, one of Arab extraction and two are unknown at the time of writing.

And yet this was an act of parliament intended to arrest the onward march of child cruelty. It was supposed to “change the culture” – although change it by stopping the majority of good parents from lightly disciplining their children.

Exhibit two: the law itself. And this is where the prime minister is not simply wrong but deliberately misleading the country.

The law is explicit. Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) states that “nothing justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. And if anyone is in doubt on that – and Section 59 delineates occasions when parental force might be warranted in protecting a child – the above imperative trumps those exceptions.

Indeed the law is so inadequately and poorly drafted that it now includes the Key/Clark amendment that the prime minister seems determined to protect.

“To avoid doubt,” it states, “it is affirmed that the police have the discretion not to prosecute.”

Frankly, this is no concession. Police always have that discretion. The section simply recognises existing police practice. That the police have created their own operating procedures with regard to Section 59 is accepted. But Child Youth and Family do not have that discretion. They simply applied the law as it was written. And who could blame them?

The best solution then is to change the law; not to retain a section that categorically states that, if I smack my child on the bottom or hand for corrective reasons, I am guilty of assault. This was always the intent of the Bradford bill – and remains the intent of the “Yes” lobby.

Little wonder that Key is being lauded by Bradford, Bagust, the Children’s Commission and the like. In fact, this in itself should cause the National caucus to pause. The anti- smacking zealots back the prime minister, the rest of the country does not.

In fact, it must be doubly embarrassing for Key that the best argument against his supine sophistry was advanced by himself in originally opposing the Bradford bill. Why, he asked parliament in 2007, would you allow a law that you have no intention of applying? Why indeed, prime minister.

Key attempted an answer last week by suggesting that he didn’t want to waste parliament’s time. Except private member’s bills are inherently not the prime minister’s to dismiss. They are the private bills of individual MPs and used to address outstanding moral issues or to remedy quirks of fate or law. In this case, both imperatives apply.

And what could be more important to any ordinary family than parliament interfering with a parent’s right to correct their child? Such is, surely, as important as parliament gets? Especially when your party ran its “anti-nanny state” line so vigorously at the last election.

Which leads one to the only possible conclusion. Key, secretly, thinks parents should be banned from lightly disciplining their children. Key is, we now discover, actually one the state’s nannies. A petty fascist.

This means this is the end of the honeymoon. As the anti-smacking legislation came to define all that was wrong with Labour, so it has worked its revelatory magic with National. It has proven there is no real difference between the parties: that they both think they know best and the public is stupid.

Tomorrow it will still be illegal to smack your child. The law states so. And it is also illegal for the prime minister to tell the police and CYF they can practically ignore this law. He simply does not have that authority as any number of public law precedents prove.

Meanwhile, kiddies are being killed. The culture of violence that produces those deaths continues to spiral out of control. And we refuse to target those groups that we know are the most abusive and the most feral.

No wonder US TV host David Letterman wants the prime minister on his late-night talk show. He could not have written a script so surreal.

ACT: Key’s ‘huge mistake’ will cost National

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

ACT: Key’s ‘huge mistake’ will cost National

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 5:17a.m. Prime Minister John Key has made “a huge mistake” by refusing to change the so-called anti-smacking law and National will suffer for it at the next election, the ACT Party says.

“He is making exactly the same mistake as Helen Clark made – he is putting himself above the overwhelming wish of the majority of New Zealanders,” MP John Boscawen told NZPA.

“I think he’s making a very stupid mistake”.

Mr Key yesterday said he was going to ensure parents were not prosecuted for an inconsequential smack but he wasn’t going to change the law in response to the referendum result.

Voters faced the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction by a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

About 1.6 million ticked the boxes and nearly 88 percent said “no”.

Mr Key said changes were likely to the way welfare officers handled complaints about light smacking and police would be asked to review their procedures to make sure good parents weren’t treated like criminals.

“I am not going to allow that to happen to them and if the law shows, through its application, that New Zealand parents are criminalised or their children are taken off them in some bizarre case for what could only be described as minor or inconsequential smacking, then the law has to be changed,” he said.

But the facts showed people were not being prosecuted and he wanted to find ways to assure parents that was not going to start happening.

Mr Boscawen said the referendum result was a clear, emphatic vote for the law to be changed.

“I think he’s taking a very grave risk in ignoring such a massive mandate for a change to the law,” he said.

“I think he’s being very foolish, his response is totally inadequate and he’s making a huge mistake.”

Mr Boscawen said National’s poll ratings would drop and the impact would carry through to the next election.

Family First, one of the referendum’s main promoters, said MPs and ministers were receiving floods of e-mails demanding a law change.

“The referendum wasn’t about recommendations, guidelines or comfort – it was about a law change,” said Family First director Bob McCoskrie.

Govt won’t support ACT smacking bill

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

Govt won’t support ACT smacking bill

By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post

John Boscawen and Sue Bradford
John Boscawen and Sue Bradford

Prime Minister John Key has ruled out supporting an ACT bill urging the repeal of so-called anti-smacking laws.

The member’s bill, put up by ACT MP John Boscawen, was drawn from the ballot today.

It threatened to revive the divisive smacking debate just days after a referendum resoundingly backed the right of parents to smack.

But Mr Key today scotched any likelihood of the bill passing its first parliamentary vote by declaring National’s opposition.

Labour is also likely to oppose the bill when it comes up for debate in a few weeks.