Family Integrity

Tag: Referendum

  • Barnardos Labels Marchers ‘Ignorant’!

    Barnardos Labels Marchers ‘Ignorant’!


    In an incredible outburst, Advocacy Manager for Barnardos Deborah Morris-Travers, who ran the Yes vote campaign at the recent election, has written to the NZ Herald and attacked the upcoming March for Democracy, saying that the march will ” mobilise the ignorant “! This is an example of the lack of respect that some government funded organisations and some politicians and ex-politicians have for the democratic process and the voice of NZ families. It is ironic that Morris-Travers was a Minister of the Crown complements of a change in the voting system from FPP to MMP that less people voted for than voted in the anti-smacking Referendum.

    If you want a reason to march , stand up against being labelled IGNORANT simply because you want a democratic country that listens to the voice of NZ’ers, and you want to tackle real abuse – not real parents.


    March to call for action on smacking referendum
    NZ Herald Oct 27, 2009
    A march to protest the Government’s lack of action following the so-called anti-smacking referendum has been announced today. Colin Craig, an Auckland businessman said the march is about democracy and the government has so far ignored the majority of referendum respondents who voted against the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. …Family First director Bob McCroskie said his group wanted to tackle “rotten parents” but the repeal of Section 59 was not the answer. “A bad law is still a bad law even if law abiding citizens follow it,” Mr McCroskie said.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605638
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605777

    Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz

  • Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Essential

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 October 2009

    Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Essential

    ‘How many more children have to die before we do something?’

    Family First NZ is repeating its call for a Commission of Enquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse and deaths in NZ.

    The call comes following the suspected child abuse death of Wanganui toddler Karl Perigo-Check Junior which is the 18th case since the passing of the anti-smacking law.

    “We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF, CYF and Children’s Commissioner reports,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

    “Over the past 30 years we have allowed a succession of policies to diminish the importance of family structure and marriage. We have watched as politicians have given adults the right to silence, bail and parole while the rights of children to be safe have been ignored. We have allowed children to be raised in homes with an unacceptable level of drug abuse, family dysfunction and physical and emotional harm. And we’ve allowed the media to fill our minds with increasing levels of sexual and violent images in the name of entertainment and freedom of speech.”

    “The 88% of voters who oppose the anti-smacking law are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children. They are simply kiwis who are exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed family welfare groups are more interested in targeting good parents than tackling these much tougher issues.”

    “Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with at least 18 deaths since the law was passed,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Sue Bradford was right when she said that her law was never intended to deal with the problem of child abuse.”

    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    “An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie. www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

    HALL OF SHAME

    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007

    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007

    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007

    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007

    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa

    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu

    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury

    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008

    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008

    10.  16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008

    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009

    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009

    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009

    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09

    15. Three-year-old Kash McKinnon Palmerston North Aug 09

    16. Baby death arrest Green Bay 26 Aug 2009

    17. 22 month old Hail-Sage McClutchie Morrinsville 27 Sep 2009 

    18. Karl Perigo-Check Junior Wanganui 25 Oct 2009

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | 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 — We Need Your Feet!

    A special request.

    We need you! – your energy – and your networking ability – to get the message out!

    The March for Democracy will be held
    1.30pm Sat 21 November, Queen St Auckland


    and will be calling on the government to amend s59 of the Crimes Act so that the law does not treat light smacking for the purpose of correction as a criminal offence, and to respect the democratic voice of NZ’ers.

    Please mark this date in your diaries as we make a stand for families and for democracy in New Zealand.

    Would you please consider distributing this info amongst your contacts and spreading the word?

    Colin Craig, an Auckland businessman who is funding the march, says “I find it deeply disturbing that such a clear message from the people of this country to government has been ignored. My forefathers fought for a democracy and in a democracy the government does not pass and retain laws that nearly 90% of the people don’t want. It is my turn to help fight for the rights of ordinary New Zealanders.”

    He’s absolutely right – but he’s not just moaning about it.

    He’s putting his money where his mouth is. He wants to host the biggest public march NZ has seen – and we need to get in behind him.

    When families speak with such a loud and united voice, as they have on the issue of the anti-smacking law, the politicians must not be allowed to ignore it. It is significant that politicians are willing to accept democracy when it is to their benefit but are willing to blatantly ignore it when it highlights wrong decisions. Voters clearly called for a law change – not comfort and more reviews of a rejected law change.

    An average of 83% in the polls over the past 4 years have consistently opposed the anti-smacking law. The high threshold of 285,000 signatures was met for having the Referendum (in fact 310,000 valid signatures in the end), 87.4% of those who voted supported the law change, and yet within a couple of hours, the result was completely dismissed.

    A Private Members Bill by ACT MP John Boscawen drawn just 3 days later, against all the odds, was then unilaterally ‘kicked for touch’ by the Prime Minister.

    This is now far greater than just the smacking issue. It’s an issue of democracy in New Zealand, and the dismissal of the views of an overwhelming majority of voters by our elected representatives.

    It may not be the smacking issue that ‘presses your button’. But imagine if an issue you were passionate about – that had the overwhelming support of the public – was simply ignored, belittled, and dismissed by the politicians. Is that the kind of representative democracy we want?

    It appears that political parties are keen to accept petitions in their favour – United Future on daylight saving,  Labour on night-classes – and support binding Referendums – National on MMP, Labour on the Super City, and the Greens on the Monarchy – but when it’s a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum, they suddenly go deaf!

    Families need to speak up for democracy – and this is our opportunity.

    Official Website : www.themarch.co.nz

    Thanks for your consideration.

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

  • The March For Democracy

    http://www.themarch.co.nz/

    New Zealand Herald advertisement 23rd October 2009

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

    PUBLIC MEETING TONIGHT


    ‘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….


    Speakers
    * 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.


    HAMILTON
    TONIGHT     7.30 p.m.
    Hamilton Central Baptist Church, 33 Charlemont Street, Hamilton
    CLICK HERE FOR MAP OF LOCATION


    DARGAVILLE
    Monday 12 October, 7.00 p.m.
    Dargaville Town Hall, 37 Hokianga Road, DARGAVILLE
    CLICK HERE FOR MAP OF LOCATION


  • 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

  • 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 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:

    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, 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 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 Release

    Kiwi 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

  • 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