| Campaign4Democracy |
|
Meetings coming up with John Boscawen, Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock in 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; 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. Larry Baldock objectid=10600928   |
Tag: Politics
-
Campaign4Democracy
-
Public meeting in Christchurch tonight 21 September 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.
Regards
Craig Hill
021746113
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
SPEAKERS INCLUDE
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
Email kbridgman@xtra.co.nz
Or phone 09 531 5531
-
Meeting in Mt Roskill Monday night 7 September 2009 – 7:30pm
Meeting in Mt Roskill Monday night PUBLIC MEETING
The way
The way forward on
Section 59Hi 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 Goffand
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.
CLICK HERE FOR MAP OF LOCATION
Date: 7:30pm, Monday, September 7 2009
ENDS
-
Commonwealth suspends Fiji – John Key listen to the people of NZ!!!
Will it come to this in New Zealand!!!
John Key listen to the nearly 90% of New Zealanders who say “No” to the Government interfering in our lives.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/2824743/Commonwealth-suspends-Fiji
Commonwealth suspends Fiji
Last updated 07:01 02/09/2009Fiji has automatically been suspended from the 53-nation Commonwealth, after it failed to respond to a demand to begin restoring democracy to the island nation.
The Commonwealth had demanded that the South Pacific island nation meet conditions – such as resuming a dialogue with opposition groups and holding early elections – by midnight local time, or face suspension.
The Commonwealth says Fiji responded to the request by the deadline, but it did not meet all of the group’s requirements.
Fiji has been under military rule since self-appointed Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, the country’s armed forces chief, seized power in a 2006 coup. His government had promised elections earlier this year.
The country had been previously suspended from the Commonwealth in 2000, and was expelled in 1987 for ten years.
– AP
-
John Armstrong: National won’t be smacked twice
John Armstrong: National won’t be smacked twice
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10593810&pnum=0
4:00AM Saturday Aug 29, 2009
By John ArmstrongNo 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:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10593810&pnum=0
-
CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM REPORT
CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM REPORT
31 August, 2009Well, 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 www.4democracy.co.nz 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. -
New referendum petition possible
The Kiwi Party
Press ReleaseKiwi Party leader Larry Baldock said he is thinking about collecting signatures for another Citizens Initiated Referendum petition.
Mr Baldock said this time the question might be “Should Members of Parliament as part of good governing ignore a referendum with 87.4% support of the people?”Asked whether he thought this would have widespread support Mr Baldock said, “almost certainly! Because so many were frustrated about democracy being undermined by the Prime Minister the huge task of collecting more than 300,000 signatures would be made easier than last time.”
“However there is always the risk that after obtaining sufficient signatures again to force a referendum, and achieving a huge ‘No’ vote, there may be some who will complain that the question is confusing, loaded or misleading.
“What is good governing they will ask, and how can anyone ‘really’ know what the voters ‘really’ mean?
After all, how can anyone know what ‘good governing is’ since New Zealanders have not seen it for such a long time!”
Ends
Contact
Larry Baldock
021864833 -
Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny
Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny
http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/2815488/Smacking-debate-proves-both-parties-want-to-play-nanny
By MICHAEL LAWS – Sunday Star Times
Last updated 09:47 30/08/2009OPINION: 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.
-
Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand
Larry Baldock
The Kiwi Party
Press ReleaseOpen Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand,
Parliament,
Wellington26 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
-
Democracy in danger?
The Kiwi Party
Press Release“The final results announced yesterday by the Chief Electoral Office show that more New Zealanders took part in the Smacking referendum than the 1992 MMP referendum,” said Kiwi Party Leader Larry Baldock.
Compare smacking referendum with MMP referendum
Smacking Referendum
56.09% took part
87.40% voted NOMMP Referendum Sept 1992
55% took part
85% voted for changeFollowing the MMP referendum, Labour leader Mike Moore said “The people didn’t speak on Saturday, they screamed.”
“As a nation we changed our voting system with less of a mandate than was given to our politicians last Friday.
“Instead of sending troops to Afghanistan to fight for democracy, maybe we should send them to Wellington!
“Instead of Fiji being suspended from the Pacific Forum,for ignoring the Democratic will of the people, perhaps New Zealand should be suspended…..?”
Ends
Contact Larry Baldock
021864833