Family Integrity

Tag: parents

  • Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 January 2010

    Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    Family First NZ says that ‘time out’ is now being labeled as harmful to children based on flawed ideology and without any research to back up the claims, as was the case with the smacking debate.

    “Last week, an Australian parenting expert labeled time out as shameful and humiliating, joining other so-called parenting experts who claim that time out creates hurt, anger and defiance in a child ultimately harming them. They also claim that nervous habits can result, and that children should not be told they are naughty,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Once again, these unsubstantiated and ideologically flawed claims and latest fads in parenting by academics simply undermine the confidence of parents to raise their children in a positive and common sense way. Where does it stop? Will it soon be unacceptable to withdraw privileges or ‘ground’ a child – perhaps it will soon be even unacceptable to frown at a child who is misbehaving!”

    “Great and law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to changed their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology. Yet all these techniques have been proven throughout the generations to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “The discipline, training and correction of children, and techniques being used to achieve this, are being demonized with no justification.”

    “For example, research earlier this month has shown that light smacking is not harmful and can even be beneficial to children.”

    “Parents should be given the freedom and respect to raise their own children in a common sense and non-abusive way rather than being harassed with the latest theories of child rearing from so-called experts,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    It’s time the government listened to thorough and balanced research, and to the experience of parents and grandparents on smacking, time out and other issues related to raising responsible and law abiding citizens, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of academics and state agencies who have misdefined positive parenting and child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’

    MEDIA RELEASE 16 December 2009

    Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’

    “Why were we never consulted” – Parents

    We, the parents who were accused of misrepresenting the facts of our smacking cases and therefore misleading Family First, are refuting the claims, and reject the findings of the report commissioned by the Prime Minister.

    Why were we never consulted in the process? It appears that our accounts of what happened and the supporting documentation we provided, including court, police and CYF documents, to Family First has been ignored and the only opinion that matters has been that of the police and CYF. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow our voice to be heard.

    The report contains glaring errors including

    • misrepresentation of basic facts,
    • contains alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive,
    • fails to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults
    • reports a case where the police prosecution was dismissed by the court, yet the report still argues that all police action was appropriate
    • fails to address a number of cases where parents were investigated by police or CYF for erroneous claims of smacking made by passers-by or the children themselves ringing 111

    In one of the cases, the parent involved says

    CYF fully acknowledge that their handling of this case around alleged smacking was inappropriate and breached good practice.  They have apologized, both in written form and in person, and freely acknowledge that their failure to adhere to good practice caused undue stress to the family.  Although it was certainly appropriate to investigate, the separation of the family for 72 hours should never have happened.

    In another case, the parent involved says

    The report has included material which paints me as abusing my child yet that evidence was never accepted in court, was only alleged, and the child even renounced those claims to CYF and said the complaint was made up – yet I am still painted as guilty.

    As parents referred to in the report, we believe that we should have had the opportunity to respond to the claims made by the police and CYF. This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides.

    portunity to respond to the claims made by the

    We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area.

    Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns.

    We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts.

    The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.

    Signed

    “John and Sue” – pg 27

    Parent – “Father charged for one smack” – pg 24

    Parent – “Father charged for shoulder shake” – p21

    “John and Mary” – pg 23

    “Tania” – pg 30

    “Briar” – pg 29

    “Jeff and Mary” – pg 28

    Parent – “My daughter ran from our house” – pg 31

    (page numbers refer to relevant case in Prime Minister’s Report http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Sec59_review.pdf )

    Information provided of police/CYF investigations but was not even included in review

    Mother suspended for tapping child on hand

    Father charged for ‘shoulder shake’ of boy refusing to get out of bed

    Mother of 10 year old who rings 111

    ENDS

    READ MORE Specific Detail Showing How the Report Misrepresents the Facts


    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law

    MEDIA RELEASE

    13 December 2009

    PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law

    Family First NZ says that an expert legal opinion on the smacking law published in the latest NZ Law Journal is confirmation that John Key needs to amend the law, not the guidelines, in order to deliver what he has told NZ parents.

    The article by Prof Richard Ekins from Auckland University entitled “’Light Smacking’ and Discretion” says

    • the 2007 Act makes it quite clear that parents who lightly smack their children for the purpose of correction commit a criminal act – contrary to the ‘sales pitch’ by politicians. It also criticises a number of MP’s for the way they have tried to present the effects of the new law
    • any Police policy not to prosecute light smacking is unlawful.  ‘If the Government wishes to protect “good parents” from the criminal law then it cannot rely on s 59(4) but must instead invite Parliament to enact legislation specifying when and how reasonable force – a light smack – for the purpose of correction is justified.’
    • ‘The Police guidelines for the new s 59 demonstrate a tension between the presumption that light smacking of a child is inconsequential – effectively the Government’s position – and the Police Family Violence Policy’ – namely zero tolerance
    • the police guidelines indicate that a parent who lightly smacks their child on more than one occasion or who smacks more than one of their children should be automatically prosecuted
    • ‘Reasonable persons accept a duty to obey the law and hence are concerned that the law be reasonable. Because the Act makes it unlawful – a criminal offence – for any person to act in this way, the prospect of being accused, convicted, and punished, while not unimportant, is of secondary interest.’

    “John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores 87% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague. Legal experts agree with him. It is a badly written law as it stands,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “As the Ekins article says, good parents’ primary concern is that they operate under reasonable laws because they accept a duty to obey the law. They may obey the law but that doesn’t mean they agree with it.”

    “The PM said earlier this week that a light smack is ok and shouldn’t be criminalised – a view shared by more than 80% of the country.  But that’s not what the law says, as proved by this article,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Mr Key should take legal advice – not political advice – and amend the law to deliver what he wants, thereby giving parents certainty that they are parenting within the law. Then perhaps we can start to focus on the real causes of child abuse and the rotten parents who are abusing their kids and don’t care what the law says.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Stop beating on Sweden’s parents!

    Stop beating on Sweden’s parents!

    By Caroline Olsson

    Translation: Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Lawyer, President of the NCHR

    This article was previously published on the Swedish Internet Site, Newsmill.se – 2009-12-03

    http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2009/12/03/sluta-sla-pa-sveriges-foraldrar
    Swedish authorities and legal institutions have a negative attitude towards parenthood, which is not good for the relationship between children and parents. Many children need more time with their parents to feel safe. Now the government intends be even stricter with school attendance, and even prevent parents who want to take care of their children’s schooling, so-called Home-schooling. They are also negative to children’s absence from school for travel with their families, and in general they announce “tougher measures” which will not help the confused children.

    Children need their parents as life-coaches, but there is so little time in today’s stressful society. Children need a solid relationship with an adult to find their identity, and develop their personalities in a natural way.
    Swedish society does not respect parenthood. Parents are seen as some sort of service to the school system, which will ensure the provision of children who are rested, fed, have done their homework and are interested in going to school.

    I am sure that very many of the problems of today’s society, have arisen precisely because time for children and parents to be together has shrunk. This has happened gradually, and perhaps imperceptibly. We have given priority to other things, and now we need to wake up and see that too many children are suffering.

    Those in power do not see this connection, so now they want to legislate more stringent attendance at school and even “tougher measures”. They want to prevent parents who have the opportunity to take responsibility for their children’s schooling, so-called Home-schooling, by requiring “special reasons”. It will also be more difficult to get time off from school for example to travel with the family. They have not tried to find out how very many children suffer today in the schools, due to bullying, harassment, and the like. Politicians talk about the “right to education”, as if there are no problems in the schools. Many children and young people are experiencing the “right” to attend school and social interaction, which the politicians are talking about, rather like a prison and a torment. A very large proportion of children today are exhibiting anxiety about going to school.

    Politicians say: “We must have schools, because we have had them since the 1800s.” Usually it would not be so modern for you to say that something is from the 1800s. We are living in a completely different society now. Back then they wanted to increase public knowledge. But now the level of education of most adults is much higher than primary school, so now there is no reason to force all children to go to school, if the parents have other options.

    The Government’s new Education Act Bill sends out a very serious message to all the parents in this country. We are now being prohibited from giving our children a better alternative to going to school. Parents are simply not allowed to judge what is good for their own children.

    Sweden needs a new approach to parenthood. We need to see parents as experts on their children. The solution is not to pull children away from their parents even more, but to support children and parents, to make use of all the time they can get to spend together.

    Sweden is selling out the immense power that parents’ responsibility for their children represents. This is a disaster. We cannot afford to do without it. It is upon that power that a society rests. If you who are in power continue to display this negative attitude, you will undermine the whole society. You cannot replace parenting by doubling the number of school nurses and counsellors. Parenthood cannot be substituted at all. Your animosity towards parents will only cost countless extra billions.

  • Some Correction Needed, But John Key says it’s OK!

    From Family First NZ

    Some Correction

    Needed



    But John Key says it’s OK!


    Prime Minister John Key and Nigel Latta say the anti-smacking law is working well, that there is no evidence of good parents being criminalised, that Family First has been misled by parents , and that light smacking shouldn’t be a criminal offence .

    So here’s some questions:
    * Why did CYF formally apologise to this family for the way they handled a smacking complaint?
    CYFS says sorry to ‘traumatised’ family
    NZ Herald Jul 31, 2009
    * Why did this parent get prosecuted ?
    ‘I asked for help but instead got conviction’
    NZ Herald Jul 28, 2009 A Wellington solo father says he went to Child, Youth and Family Services for help – and ended up with a conviction for smacking his daughter.
    * Why was this family investigated and referred to a government agency?
    School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
    Sunday Star Times Oct 28 2007
    * The law (and Plunket / Barnardos / Childrens Commissioner / Families Commissioner) says a smack is illegal . But John Key says its acceptable and shouldn’t be a criminal offence . Who’s correct ?
    “Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said. Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not ‘for the purposes of correction’ and is given for one of the permitted reasons. “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said – Source NZ Herald
    (By the way, we agree!!)
    * Why didn’t the report interview and seek feedback from kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting?
    * Why didn’t the report address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents , and threatening to report them to the police or CYF?
    * Why didn’t the report address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents ?
    * Why didn’t the report address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence policy which demands zero tolerance?
    * Why didn’t the report address why so many cases of what are supposed to be serious ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments , and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all?
    * Why didn’t the report address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.

    WHY?
    When we get some answers we’ll let you know!

    But please be aware – the latest report does not answer these important questions .

    Have a great week


    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/

    Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

  • Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

    Family First NZ

    MEDIA RELEASE

    7 December 2009

    Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

    Family First NZ is dismissing yet another report on the anti-smacking law which fails to address the real issues and concerns over the law change.

    “This is the eighth report in just over two years on the law change. There have never been so many reports in such a short time frame on a law change in an attempt to sell it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The police have done six reports, a report from the ministry of Social Development, and now this report commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to the overwhelming rejection of the law in the recent Referendum.”

    “We weren’t expecting miracles in this report because one of the panel members Peter Hughes from the MSD has only recently released a report where he admits that he cannot conclude whether the law is achieving its purpose, and he cannot conclusively say that good parents are not being criminalized or victimized by this law with unnecessary state intervention. This is primarily because he doesn’t talk to them!”

    “A senior police office who examined the prosecutions of a number of parents as a result of the new law says that without exception, the public interest was not served in pursuing prosecutions.”

    “In the latest report, it fails in the following areas:

    • it fails to address the concerns of kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting
    • it fails to address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents, and threatening to report them to the police or CYF
    • it fails to address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents
    • it fails to address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence police which demands zero tolerance
    • it fails to address why so many cases of what are supposed to be ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments, and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all
    • it fails to address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.”

    “This report is another government-funded sales pitch for a flawed law which has been resoundingly rejected by New Zealanders. John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores almost 90% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague.”

    “A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment-the Boscawen amendment. That’s what parents deserve” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Related document:

    Review of New Zealand Police and Child, Youth and Family Policies and Procedures relating to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (pdf, 1675 Kb)

  • New Deputy Commissioner Will Speak For Families

    MEDIA RELEASE

    25 November 2009

    New Deputy Commissioner Will Speak For Families

    Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of Parents Inc’s Bruce Pilbrow as Deputy Families Commissioner.

    “Bruce Pilbrow will bring some much needed balance at the Commission and rather than talking at parents, it will hopefully start listening to the voice of families and advocating for them in a relevant way,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Unfortunately it isolated itself by ignoring some of its own research and the voice of the overwhelming majority of parents when it supported ramming through the anti-smacking law without representing the concerns and views of parents.”

    “Pilbrow’s politically incorrect views on the smacking law – ironically shared by almost 90% of the country – shows that he’s willing to move past the rhetoric and ideology, and objectively examine the facts and experiences of families.”

    “The appointment suggests that the government is willing to have a diversity of opinion in the Commission. This can only strengthen the important debates to be had around family issues,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Issues such as the benefits of marriage, the harm of long term daycare for very young children, an independent CYF Complaints authority,  the sexualisation of children in marketing, drug and alcohol abuse in our communities, and broadcasting and advertising standards are all big issues for families which the Commission needs to tackle head-on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First would still like to see the appointment of a Minister of Families at the Cabinet table.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Family Integrity #483 — Girls and Gardasil

    Family Integrity #483 — Girls and Gardasil


    (From Family First’s Mid-Week update):

    Girls and Gardasil: the protection game
    MercatorNet 22 Oct 09
    A mother and public health student offers ten reasons not to vaccinate children against a sexually transmitted disease. The arguments for and against this particular immunisation are rarely provided by schools, yet parents, for the sake of their children, need to consider carefully the messages they are conveying by agreeing to this vaccine.
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/girls_and_gardasil_the_protection


  • Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand

    Larry Baldock

    Larry Baldock

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand,
    Parliament,
    Wellington

    26 August, 2009

    Dear Prime Minister,

    As you are aware I have led and organised the recent Citizens Initiated Referendum on the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act that has given all New Zealanders a chance to voice their strongly held views on a controversial subject. This was only possible because of the support given by a marvellous group of volunteers who gave their time and resources freely.

    An important part of that group, at least in the first months of the campaign, were many of your Caucus members who strongly opposed the Sue Bradford’s bill, and actively collected signatures for the petition to force the referendum.

    Given this common history in the referendum, and the very strong result, it would seem reasonable then that I may have been invited by you to discuss some proposals to address the widespread concerns of the majority of this country’s citizens.

    In contrast, I have learnt from news reports that, prior to the referendum results being announced you have been involved in discussions with those we discover now only represent just fewer than 12 percent of the Referendum vote, such as Sue Bradford and Deborah Morris-Travers. In fact it seems that advisors from the ‘Yes” vote coalition are literally crawling all over our ‘House of Representatives.’

    I shall therefore endeavour to communicate my concerns through this open letter and hope you may grant me an opportunity for personal dialogue as well.

    The final results show that 87.4 percent voted ‘No!’ This means more New Zealanders voted ‘No’ in this referendum than voted for the National party in the 2008 elections and that the turnout at 56 percent was higher than for the referendum on MMP in 1992.

    Your views about the rights of parents and your disapproval of the way the Helen Clark-led government ignored the majority opposition to the Bradford law are well known and documented. This makes your current position very difficult to understand and impossible to justify or defend.

    When you try to reassure concerned parents with your personal promises, it seems, from the outside at least, that you are falling prey to the attitude that your predecessor developed wherein she thought as Prime Minister her opinion mattered more than anyone else’s, and that it was within her power to take care of everyone.

    With all due respect John, you will not be Prime Minister forever. If you leave the Bradford law on our statutes any future government will be able to change the police and CYFS policy guidelines by executive decree, without reference to the democratically elected House of Representatives. This would render your short-term proposals aimed at giving comfort to the good parents of New Zealand null and void.

    Prime Minister, good parents do not want words of comfort they want legislative change!

    Your continued claims that the ‘law is working well’ are not enhancing anyone’s view of your comprehension of what the law was supposed to do, and what it is in fact accomplishing.

    As a parliamentarian you will know that the purpose of a bill is summed up in its ‘purpose clause’.
    It is impossible to properly evaluate whether or not the law as enacted is working well, except by reference to the purpose clause of the Bill itself.

    Sue Bradford’s purpose clause was “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction”.

    Here in clause 4 of her Bill we have the purpose and the means of achieving that purpose, defined very clearly, namely to reduce violence towards children (child abuse) by abolishing the use of parental force for correction!

    The continued abuse and sickening deaths of children since the Bill was passed is proof that it is not achieving that purpose. The awful abuse continues, and Sue Bradford herself readily admits, “My bill was never intended to solve this problem”. (National Radio Dec 2007)

    So not only is the law not working, but also that lofty goal has long since been abandoned by its sponsor!

    When you claim that no good parents are being criminalised I think you are referring to ‘prosecuted’.  The police records do indicate that the numbers of prosecutions are low at this point for smacking or minor acts of discipline offences, but the truth is that every parent that continues to use a smack for correction is automatically criminalised.

    After all, wouldn’t we consider a thief a criminal once they stole possessions that were not their own, regardless of whether they were caught by the police and prosecuted? After being found guilty in court their status would then be changed to that of a convicted criminal.

    The number of prosecutions by the police of good parents is therefore not evidence of whether the law is working or not.

    The law has an effect on every good parent in this country even if a single prosecution has not been laid.

    You may not have had to deal with the circumstances created when your child comes home from school to announce that they had been informed that they should report Mummy or Daddy to the teacher if they are smacked, but many have.

    Your proposal to solve this dilemma appears to be that parents should wilfully break the law of the country, while disciplining their children for breaking the rules within the family home! This forces many parents into the awful position of a hypocritical ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ type parenting which should not be recommended by anyone, least of all the Prime Minister.

    A useful test of the efficacy of the new law might be to determine how many more prosecutions the police are bringing before the courts against real child abusers. This is because supporters of the amendment to Sec 59 constantly claim that the police were hindered from prosecuting real child abusers because the previous Sec 59 defence of reasonable force meant they could easily be acquitted. They claimed that as a result the police were not even bothering to bring charges against these criminals.

    This of course was not supported by a proper study of case law over the past 15 years, or the police statistics.

    However, if this is the justification for the new law we should have seen a dramatic increase in the number of police prosecutions for crimes against our children, given that any use of force by parents for correction is now prohibited.

    Police records and statements by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope in the last police report on the new law saying that “its business as usual for the police” clearly confirms that the law is not working in that regard.

    There is only one way in which it could be claimed the law is working, (though I cannot believe that this is what you mean), and that it is that progress is being made towards the total abolition of the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

    While prosecutions at this stage are low, the latest police report confirms that the police have issued a considerable number of warnings. What is the purpose of those warning Prime Minister? Does not a warning imply that the police have informed the traumatised family members that have just been subject to an investigation that they should not use force for the purpose of correction again, or else prosecution would likely follow. Surely that must be the case.

    Because the purpose of the law is to ultimately stop parents from using any force for the purpose of correction!

    All your promises and words of comfort are meaningless since the police are to be independent in enforcing the law in New Zealand. We have had enough of the police asking the PM whether they should prosecute or not with ‘paintergate’ and the failure to prosecute Heather Simpson over the illegal spending of taxpayer money in the 2005 elections.

    New Zealanders are not stupid and they were not confused about the referendum question. They have understood from the very beginning what Sue Bradford and her supporter’s real intentions were. Surely you are not unaware of her motives, or have you now joined with her and the UN in their plan to run our country?
    That plan was made clear in the Green party’s first press release back in 2003 when they announced they had drafted an ‘anti-smacking law’ to “stop parents physically punishing their children in line with UN demands.”

    A recent survey confirmed a reduction in the number of parents using smacking for correction, which is not surprising given that it has been a criminal offence for the last two years. Unfortunately, such a decline has not resulted in a less violent society.

    I guess this does reveal though, that the law is indeed working, but is that what you and the National party were committed to? Have you really become so aligned with Sue Bradford and the 12 percent minority of the country who view all discipline as violence, that you are pleased with this outcome?

    If so, it must be said that your party has made a flip-flop in policy between May and June 2007, without consultation with your supporters, sufficient to make the 1984 Labour government look like angels of democracy!

    Given that a recent Colmar Brunton poll showed that 90 percent of National Party voters were going to vote ‘no,’ and that the result from your own electorate was about the same, surely there are many of your loyal voters who would be shocked at the change in your views on parenting?

    One of the things that made a positive impression on me, when I discussed with you how you would vote on the Prostitution Law Reform Act back in 2003, was that you said that when you were made aware of your electorates’ opposition to the proposed bill, you felt you were obligated to represent them and vote against the law.

    Surely you have not abandoned your principles in just a few short years?

    Prime Minister I have no personal interest in becoming your enemy, but I will speak up on behalf of 87.4 percent of Kiwis who voted ‘No’.

    Many of these people feel they have lost all hope of being heard by politicians in their own country. As my wife and I criss-crossed the country many times over the 18 months in which we collected signatures to force the referendum, we encountered a great deal of despair and distrust towards parliamentarians. Having been one myself, this saddened me a great deal.

    I know that most MPs generally work hard and try to do what they can to make New Zealand a better place.

    However, we both know that most Kiwis do not evaluate their MPs on the basis of their daily activities but on events like this, when there is a clear choice to be made between listening to the wishes of the people or following ones own ideas or political agenda.

    Given the current political landscape where both the Government and the ‘Queens Loyal Opposition’ MPs in this country are refusing to listen to the voice of the people and stand up for democracy, it is entirely possible that you may be able to disregard this referendum and survive politically for a few more years.

    I am absolutely convinced however, that you will do almost irreparable harm to our democracy, and strike a deep wound in the hearts of so many of your countrymen and countrywomen.

    I humble urge you to reconsider your current position,

    Yours sincerely

    Larry Baldock