Anti-Smacking Law, One Year On

One year ago, on 2 May 2008, Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill passed it's third reading. The bill had the numbers to pass, however the entire National party turned 180 degrees and all National MPs were forced to vote in favour of the bill.

Just hours before, John Key and Helen Clark had come to an agreement for a "compromise" on the bill. ACT Party leader, Rodney Hide had this to say, on 3 May:

"I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill. Good on John Key I thought. He's taken the high ground and made a difference. That's what I thought. Until I saw the amendment. It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it's Helen Clark!! This
amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms "inconsequential" and "public interest". - Rodney Hide: "Ammendment makes no difference"

The ammendment was the new subsection 4 of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, 1961, and reads:

(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential

However, the ridiculous thing is that this "inconsequential" clause was already a part of the law in New Zealand, and applies to all cases where police are considering prosecution.

Sue Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes act
Criminalises parents who elect to lightly smack their child(ren) occasionally.

...Everyday mums and dads.

The bill for repeal passes with

113 votes for. 93% of the members of Parliament. 17% to 32% of New Zealanders
Labour, National, Maori, Greens, Progressive, Peter Dunne (United Future), 4 members of NZ First

8 votes against. 7% of the members of Parliament. 68% to 83% of New Zealanders
ACT, Gordon Copeland (ex United Future), Taito Philip Field (ex Labour), 3 NZ First, Judy Turner (United Future)

And on 21 May 2008, the Governor General abandoned his duty of protecting New Zealand citizens from bad law that had managed to get through the parliamentary process - and gave consent to the bill becoming law.

On Thursday 21 June 2007, the law came into effect.

New Zealand has not forgotten this dark moment in her history. This will make itself evident at the 2008 election.

Give your party vote to The Kiwi Party, or ACT, as these are the two parties who care enough about the voice of the people of New Zealand, to bring about a change in this draconian home-invasion law.

Anti-Smacking Bill Hits California

The latest news in from California...

A proposal in the California Legislature that would define a well-deserved spanking administered in love by a concerned parent using a rolled-up newspaper as child abuse – and could send that parent to jail – now is facing a delay.

The plan, AB 2943 by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-San Jose, is a rerun of her same plan that was defeated a year ago. She has stated that her proposal only addresses "child abuse" but she also defines any spanking at all as child abuse.

Several California organizations that support traditional family values and parenting rights have raised a red flag over the issue again this year. Now the Campaign for Children and Families confirms that the plan has been delayed, and it credits a flood of telephone calls and e-mails from those concerned about the issue.

"It the last two days, Assembly Appropriations Committee members have received hundreds of phone calls and e-mail messages from Californians opposed to the notion of criminalizing parents who lovingly and infrequently spank their children to correct misbehavior," the organization said in a statement today.

- "Attack on Parenting Facing Delay" 1 May 2008 (click here for full article)

Timaru Herald Editorial Mouthpiece for Anti-Freedom Government

By Simeon, with notes by Andy [A]

The Timaru Herald published an editorial today slamming the petition calling for a referendum on the "anti-smacking" law as a "a sideshow". The editorial then goes on to say that Sue Bradford's comment telling opponents of the law to "move on" is actually popular opinion.

But this article is wrong in the assumptions that it is making. Firstly it says that "National's last-minute intervention that the police would not pursue inconsequential smacking took away much of the objection and the bill was easily passed." No this took away NO objection to this legislation, if you look at recent polling then you will see that public opinion is very much the same.

In fact, just over a week ago, a small group of volunteers collected 5,800 signatures at the V8 Racing event in Hamilton. Ahem, sorry, what did you say? public opinion has changed? Don't make me laugh. [A]

Next it says "But while the petition attracted 324,511 signatures, only 267,000 have been deemed valid, well short of the 285,000 to force the poll". 267,000 is not far off 285,000 and is one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history.

"one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history." - how much is this editor being paid? He's just filling up paper with worthless points. It is a normal number of signatures to be submitted, and the audit is not bad news at all! Norm Wither's "law and order" petition lost 60,000 signatures in it's audit. [A]

Thirdly it says "But consider what has happened since the bill was passed. The worst fears have not been realised. We have not seen a procession of parents through the courts charged with assault in the name of child discipline -- there have been just five cases. Nor have we seen the law preventing the most extreme cases, with children still dying or being badly injured at the hands of their parents." That is five cases which did not need to happen. Five families have had unneeded police interference.

Of course "the worst fears have not been realised". I have been saying this from the beginning. The Labour/Greens government knows it would be suicide to allow the police force to administer this draconian law to it's fullest extent. No indeed, they will wait until (they hope) they get elected into Government again next year, and then will begin the regime of Government initiated home-invasion on thousands of good, caring family-homes. [A]

Fourthly it says "So what has happened? Until the research is done it is only guesswork to assume the legislation is producing behavioural change. Anecdotally, there appears to be greater awareness by parents of alternatives to physical discipline, which is a good thing." We will reap what we sow.

Perhaps it is a good thing, but it doesn't even begin to justify the introduction of such a anti-freedom law, against the will of the majority of the population (83%). [A]

Lastly it says "Politicians will welcome the prospect of no anti-smacking referendum at this year's election. It would be a sideshow to the far more serious main event, and yet could also be a rogue element in terms of colouring voters' intentions. It is time to move." Yes that is true, Helen Clark and Sue Bradford will welcome no referendum at this election because if we have one everyone will be reminded at the ballot box about what Labour and the Greens have done. But no it is not time to move on because politicians are our servants not our masters.

Why are you lot so paranoid, so beside yourselves with concern at the prospect of a referendum being held? [A]

Confusion over Petition Audit Cleared Up

The No Right Turn blog explains how the Clerk came up with his figure of 269,500 (a shortfall of about 15,000) - when we were expecting 282,067 (a shortfall of about 3,000).

The Government Statistician checked 29,501, and found that 25,754 (87.3%) were valid. Multiply that proportion by the 324,511 and you get 283,294 - just 1,733 signatures short of the number required. So why does the Government Statistician say they need 18,000 more signatures? An evil plot to subvert god's will and prevent spanking through Satanic statistics?

No. Instead, its about the duplicates. The Government Statistician found 160 multiple signatures in the sample - 158 duplicates and 2 triplicates. The sample was 1/11th of the total, so this suggests that there will be a further 160 x 10 = 1,600 replicates in the sample where the other match is in the rest of the population - and therefore a further 1,600 x 10 hidden replicates in the population as a whole. Which pretty clearly gets us in the right ballpark. The problem is slightly more complicated than that, since signatures can be both invalid and duplicated; statisticians have a number of different ways of estimating this, but that's about the stage I start seeing tentacles. The important thing is that this is not a satanic statistical plot, but a problem of childbeaters being idiots who think that signing a petition multiple times helps their cause. We can only hope that they don't think the same about voting.

(With thanks to Mary Whiteside & Mark Eakin, A Better Estimate of the Number of Valid Signatures on a Petition [PDF]).

The Clerk should have released the workings in the first place, it's called Transparency.

Action Alert - Petition on Anti smacking law - From Family First

WHAT THE MEDIA HAVE BEEN SAYING TODAY REGARDING THE ANTI-SMACKING REFERENDUM

" Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures " TV3 news site
" The opponents of the "anti-smacking" law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum." - NewstalkZB
" Smacking opponents told to 'move on' after failure " NZ Herald
" Smacking Petition falls short " Dominion Post

HERE'S THE FACTS ....
How many signatures were submitted?
324,216

How many were needed to force the referendum?
Only 285.027

How many were found invalid after the thorough audit?
The government statistician ( our emphasis added ) took a sample of almost 30,000 and found an 'invalid' rate of about 13% (pretty good considering Norm Wither's law and order petition had 20% invalid rate)

So that means 324,216 less 13% invalid = 282,067 - a shortfall of about 3,000?
Yes - that's what you would expect

But they're saying that the shortfall is 18,027; 15,000 greater than the sample would indicate
That's what the government statistician ( our emphasis added) is saying

So how did he get the extra invalid signatures numbering 15,000?
Beats me (pardon the pun!). They have literally plucked a figure out of the air (arguing 'margin of error' and despite their already thorough audit), said it's their 'best estimate' - and under the Act, they don't have to be accountable for how they came to that figure.

Do we have extra time to collect the 15,000 shortfall
YES! 2 more months. As they say, "it's not over until the...."

Have any more signatures been collected since the previous cut-off date?
Yes! Almost 20,000 (including 6,500 at the V8 races last weekend - gotta love those petrol-heads!)

So you have enough to force the Referendum?
You would think so, but based on the confusing and suspicious calculations made by the government statistician ( our emphasis added ) we need a buffer of 20,000 more signatures to be totally sure

What about the 2nd petition demanding a Commission of Enquiry to identify and tackle real child abuse and their causes
This petition is also 20,000 short but because it had less than the required number of signatures as at the first cut-off date of February 28th, the 20,000 on the 2nd petition need to be submitted by May 14 - that's right - 2 weeks away

SO WHAT NOW?

Thought you'd never ask!

We need to collect 20,000 signatures on BOTH petitions preferably within 2 weeks.

WE'RE TOO CLOSE TO FAIL AT THE LAST HURDLE

1. Print off the petition form containing the 2 petitions http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/documents/CirPetition.pdf

2. Get as many signatures as you can on both petitions over the next 2 weeks

3. Sending them in to the address at the bottom of the petition form as soon as possible - but at the latest by Monday May 12. (Even forms only half filled should still be sent in as soon as)

4. PLEASE FORWARD THIS ON AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO COLLECT SIGNATURES.

Thanks for your efforts.

Count on Anti-Smacking Petition Labelled ‘Incredibly Dodgy’

Family First Media Release 29 April 2008

HUNDREDS OF PETITION FORMS DOWNLOADED TODAY
Family First NZ is labeling the counting of the signatures on the anti-smacking petition as 'incredibly dodgy'.

"Despite a very thorough audit of a sample of signatures, the government statistician has applied a further margin of error against the number of signatures," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "But margins of error go both ways, plus and minus, and it completely ignores the purpose and function of the previous thorough audit process."

"This would suggest that there is an agenda to try and 'kill' the petition."

Family First is still completely confident of success with the petition despite this setback and says the websites hosting the petition forms have been inundated with downloads of the petition form today.

"We have had almost 300 downloads just today on just the Family First website, and many emails requesting the forms," says Mr McCoskrie. "That is similar with other organisations hosting the forms."

"Despite the hopes and dreams of Labour and the Greens, this issue is not going to go away any time soon. Parents who opposed this law will get to be heard – no matter how hard they make it."

FACT SHEET
How many signatures were submitted?
324,216
How many were needed to force the referendum?
Only 285.027
How many were found invalid after the thorough audit?
The government statistician ( our emphasis added ) took a sample of almost 30,000 and found an 'invalid' rate of about 13% (pretty good considering Norm Wither's law and order petition had 20% invalid rate).
So that means 324,216 less 13% invalid = 282,067 - a shortfall of about 3,000?
Yes - that's what you would expect
But they're saying that the shortfall is 18,027; 15,000 greater than the sample would indicate
That's what the government statistician ( our emphasis added) is saying
So how did he get the extra invalid signatures numbering 15,000?
That's the million dollar question. They have literally plucked a figure out of the air (arguing 'margin of error' and despite their already thorough audit), said it's their 'best estimate' - and under the Act, they don't have to be accountable for how they came to that figure.

Do the organisers have extra time to collect the 15,000 shortfall
YES! 2 more months.
Have any more signatures been collected since the previous cut-off date?
Yes! Almost 20,000 (including 6,500 at the V8 races last weekend - gotta love those petrol-heads!)
So you have enough to force the Referendum?
You would think so, but based on the confusing and suspicious calculations made by the government statistician ( our emphasis added ) we will collect a buffer of 20,000 more signatures to be totally sure.

Clerk Reports on Petition: 20,000 signatures to go

"Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures" screams the headline on the TV3 news site.

NewstalkZB picks up the story, picking up on comments from Sue Bradford, the Green MP who introduced the Anti-Smacking bill. "The opponents of the "anti-smacking" law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum."

Stuff.co.nz presents a confused story, claiming that the petition organisers have been dealt a "major blow".

David Farrar at Kiwiblog tells it like it is.

"They needed 285,027 signatures valid signatures. They got 324,216 but a sample found around 11% were not able to be found on the electoral roll plus 1% illegible and 0.5% duplicates. This is about normal off mory.

So their valid signatures were calculated as 269,500 so they need 16,000 more valid signatures which is probably 20,000 more total signatures to be safe.

I suspect the Government is nervous about having every voter reminded of the law they are primarily identified with, at the very point at which they are voting."

Meanwhile, Bob McCoskrie doesn't have any time for the media hype, and gets to the main point, which is:

"the success of the petition demanding a public referendum on the highly unpopular and extremist anti-smacking law shows that politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of NZ parents."

The Clerk of the House has disqualified 16,294 signatures - this comes as no surprise, despite the wild exaggerations from the mainstream media. In fact, this is a relatively low number of signatures to be crossed out, as we see in an excerpt from this article (23 Feb 08) from the Section 59 blog:

"In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither's 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures."

"We have already collected an additional 20,000 signatures" says Larry Baldock in his Press Release, 29 April 2008, “We were always concerned about the hurdles to be crossed in the audit process, said Mr Baldock, and for that reason we continued collecting signatures after we handed in the 324,511 signatures on Feb 29th."

Click here to download the petition form. If you haven't already, sign it, get your friends and family to sign it, and then send it to the address on the bottom of the form.

Petition calling for referendum on anti smacking law fall shorts by about 15000

This from Stuff.co.nz My comments in italics

Organisers of a petition to force a smacking referendum have been dealt a major blow after failing to gather enough signatures. No it is not a "major blow" we have two more months to make up the difference.

They now have two more months to collect enough signatures.

The petition needed 285,027 (Stuff stuffed up and got the wrong number in there article) signatures to force a referendum but fell short after a number were excluded because they were either illegible, the signatory's date of birth could not be confirmed, or involved people who signed multiple times.

In a statement, the Office of the Clerk said an audit of signatures found that no more than 269,500 were eligible. That is a shortfall of about 15,500 signatures.

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskie appeared confident that any shortfall would easily be made up in the two months available.

He said politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of parents.

"The passing of the anti-smacking law by most of our politicians last year was an act of breathtaking arrogance which ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them to represent them in the making of our laws."

The petition by Sheryl Savill asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

If the organisers succeed in collecting the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible electors they will be able to force a referendum at the next election, though its results will be non-binding.

________________________________________
If you haven't signed the petition yet and would like to, please go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz and print it then sign it and send it to the address on the website.

Clearing up Confusion over Referendum Process

As per my last post, there is obviously a level of confusion over the future of the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking Law. Below I have a copy of the Referendum Process from the Parliament website (you can download a PDF version by clicking here). I have added some comments to the chart. I'm just focussing on the top petition question,

"Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"

Some people have been unsure of what the question for the Referendum means. It is saying, "should a smack be illegal?" And my answer, and the answer of the aproximately 70% plus New Zealanders opposed to this draconian home-invasion law will be a most definite NO.

Click here for a Press Release from Larry Baldock (Petition Organiser), where he comments on the issue.