"If you don't sign you can't complain"

If You don't sign the petition calling for a referendum on the "anti-smacking' law then you can't complain about the law at present.

With just over 1 month till we have to submit the petition back to the Clerk of the House to check for validity, NOW is the time to sign in order to have some democracy over the "anti-smacking" law.

Please go NOW to www.unityforliberty.net.nz and print it sign it and post them into P.O. Box 9228 Greerton, Tauranga.

Also you could email your friends and family and ask them to sign it, or alternatively take it into work. You will be amazed by the positive response. Or do both

Debate on the Anti-Smacking Law

On 21 May 2008, Bob McCoskrie (National director of Family First), Beth Wood and Ian Hassle (former Children's Commissioner), authors of the book entitled "unreasonable force: nz's journey to banning physical punishment of children" are interviewed on the Good Morning Show (TV1) by host Sarah Bradley.

Below are some excerpts from the interview - which can also be viewed by clicking here. comments in bold. This interview is well worth watching - or simply reading over the comments. Bob is in his element, and secures the interview as yet another victory for Family First, in using reason and common-sense to back up the sentiments held by the majority of New Zealanders.

---

Sarah: "Last year the so called so-called anti-smacking-bill was passed into law, removing the defense of parental reasonable force in cases of assault on children...

Sarah is here claiming that the approximately 83% of parents who reserve the right to use a smack as part of the training of their children - are in fact, child abusers

A little later on in the interview, Bob holds up a copy of the Green's original Anti-Smacking Bill, pointing out that it was in fact the Green Party who gave the bill it's name.

...now, Bob, the evidence shows that hitting children does not achieve anything, why does Family First still think it's an ok thing to do?"

Bob responded by first mentioning that saying "hitting" instead of "smacking" is over the top and unreasonable. He then references the research done in Otago two years ago, which found that adults who had been smacked occasionally as children performed as well as or better than children who had not been smacked. He continues, pointing out that time-out can also be missused by parents...

"[Smacking] is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances... it is not child abuse!... It is done by a parent who simply wants to correct their child."

Sarah turns to Beth and Ian...

"Let's talk about that, Beth and Ian, because do you think that "appropriate" [sarcastic] smacking of children is child abuse?"

Beth: "I don't think smacking is appropriate, but i don't think a little smack is child abuse either... However many many children experience serious assault - not a small smack with an open hand.

Hang on - so you support the law that criminalises parents who smack their children - however you also think that a smack is ok?

Ian: "The law was really, it was an intrusive law, Section 59 what it said was that "parents who were prosecuted for assault on their children could mount a defense on the grounds that simply that they were their parents, and therefore entitled to hit their children"."

Let me first point out that Ian is completely twisting the meaning of the law here. The law stated...

(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

All Section 59 did was to determine between abuse - and child-discipline. If the force used was not reasonable in the circumstances, then the law regarding abuse was applied to the case. If the force used was reasonable, then there was no problem - the parent had not in fact, broken the law. Ian's statemtent that the law said that parents were entitled to hit their children is quite simply disgusting and depraved. The law never permitted "hitting" of children, but rather a smack, and then only if the force used was reasonable (ie. caring, loving, for the purpose of correction, and for the good of the child)

Bob: "No it didn't"

Ian: "Oh yes it did"

Bob: "That's a total misrepresentation"

Ian: "Yes it did"

Bob: "Because the word was that it had to be reasonable, they were justified if it was reasonable, and for correction. and for 99.9% of the cases, it worked perfectly. yes there were a couple of cases which raised eyebrows, I acknowledge that"

Exactly Bob. Child abuse is utterly abhorent to us - however Section 59 as it was - did an extremely good job of differentiating between abuse and a smack.

Ian: "The thing about section 59 of the crimes act was that it singled out children as a group in the population for people being allowed to strike them, to assault them in effect. the assault law covers everybody except children. And so it was essentially to restore the balance... to ensure that children had the same protection as adults. Now this doesn't mean that every assault, every technical assault on children, or adults, or anybody else becomes prosecuted or ends up in the courts, um, technically, if I'm in a bar and I jostle somebody because I want to get there, that's an assault. but nobody prosecutes...

...and there was the famous case of Tana Umaga, hitting, with the handbag, now that's an assault, it wasn't prosecuted, so it wasn't criminal" [emphasis mine]

...so this whole miasma of criminalisation that's been put up by Bob and his friends has no foundation. It's about, um, having equal rights under the law, children having equal rights under the law."

Ian can't bear the truth. The Anti-Smacking law does indeed criminalise parents who smack their children for the purpose of correction.

Ian Hassle has been part of New Zealand's beurocracy for far too long. His smooth but irrational spin is lavished over everything he says. Just for one example of the dangerous concepts Ian obviously embraces, take his use of the word "balance". "Restoring the balance". Ian is here calling for child autonomy, though not in so many words.

Sarah here turns to Bob...

Sarah: "Bob, why do you think, like, for example Bob, you would not take kindly if I came and hit you or smacked you with an open hand, but you think it's ok to hit, to smack your child... Why have you got the right to do that, but I haven't got the right to do that to you?"

Oh, one small reason Sarah, - you're not Bob's mum.

Bob: "Well Sarah, I guess I can say to you as a mum is that you cannot tell Ian and Beth to go and clean their bedroom, you can't tell them to eat their peas, or get in the car so you can take them shopping, but you can certainly do that to your three-year-old. There is a special relationship between parents and kids..."

Sarah interupts, "I would never hit my child"

And good on you, aren't you just relieved then, that no law has been passed, demanding that all parents smack their children?

Bob: "No, but a smack is ok because it's part of the correction process, which is being used effectively - now, some people don't like to smack, and they say "I don't smack", that's fine, this isn't just about smacking, this is actually about the role of parents who know their kids the best, and freedom to raise them if they're doing it in a reasonable way. You see, you may prefer time-out. But once again, time-out can become abuse when it becomes neglect. You could give them withdrawal of priviliges, but once again, that can become neglect as well. You could just scream at them, and that can become psychological abuse, so you know, every technique used by parents can become abuse but, you know, back to the crimes act, it has always been a crime to assault anybody, whether its a kid or not. All Section 59 did, was acknowledge the relationship between a parent and a child, and said "if it's part of the parenting process, just in the same way I can tell my kid that they have to eat their peas before they have pudding, I can also give them a tap on the bum and say, "you need to correct this behaviour" - not a big deal."

Beth starts explaining how Section 59 was the last law that allowed anybody to hit anybody, however Bob interjects and says:

"Except for the use of the baton by police, and tazers. Once again, it has to be reasonable, appropriate in the circumstances. You can't just say that nobody can touch another person, that we've got that out of the law - it's not the case. What about on a rugby field, some of those tackles would be an assault if they were done in the main street. Once again, it's context - what's reasonable?"

Ian responds...

"Why are you talking about this punishment? We're talking about children here, we're talking about the people we've chosen to have, to live with us in our household, why can't we have a more peaceful reasonable relationship with them, why are we always talking in New Zealand about hitting them and controlling them, time-out and all of those things - these are, these are human beings that we choose to live with."

Are we indeed always talking about hitting and controlling children?

Bob: "Yeah, that's true, but maybe we should do away with fines and do away with prisons, I mean at the end of the day there has to be consequences..."

Sarah wraps up the interview, however Bob gets one more word in,

"In 2007, the Unicef report on child abuse, in the top ten countries who have the lowest level of child abuse, six of them had not banned smacking. The safest country for kids to live in was the Netherlands, at the time of the report, they had not banned smacking."

The above quotes are as accurate as possible, taken from this interview.

14yr Old's Satire Exposes Anti-Smacking-Law Folly

from www.familyintegrity.org.nz | Concern Over Proposed 'Garden Laws'

The upcoming anti-pruning bill is ridiculous! New Zealand's garden party heads this campaign to stop all plant abuse and stick up for plants' rights. Laws against starting destructive fires and wantonly chopping down plants and trees already exist, rendering this change unnecessary. Replacing the old bill, which justifies the use of force on plants for correction and training, smacks of foolishness. The only purpose for which they will allow force is to restrain plants from harm to themselves or others. How can plants grow properly when they cannot be corrected?

The current legislation allows the "use of force" for correction and training of flora and fauna. It states that every gardener is justified in using force by way of training a plant if that force is reasonable in the circumstances. The new law achieves a full repeal of the old legislation and removes any common law rule having the same effect. This bans not only pruning, but many other valuable gardening strategies, including weeding and staking. Why tolerate a law against techniques proven successful and harmless over centuries?

With the majority of New Zealanders against the new legislation, chances of it passing appear slim, but this government often arrogantly disregards the people's opinions. Polls show that an outstanding 78% of the population oppose this bill. They realize that this change will consider talented, successful gardeners criminals under the law. Disobedience discovered means plants uprooted at great risk and placed in other care. Some will always hurt plants, but this legislation will not stop them. It will only hinder good gardeners from effectively doing their job. Get the government out of gardens!

Research shows that many of the proposal's banned procedures actually improve growth. Staking plants, which they say violates plants' rights to freedom, truly helps. A case researching the advantages of staked vs. unstaked tomato plants, revealed that damage by all species reduced significantly in staked plants. Numbers of the deadly granulate cut worms and southern army worms also inhibited by staking. Stakes and trellises not only reduce much damage to plants from other creatures, but provide support, preventing taller plants from giving way and plants with sprawling growth habits from growing wild.

Opposing this proposition is necessary. While the government tries to oversee gardeners' ways by making beneficial actions illegal, many more important issues will be overlooked. This change gives "Advice to the Police that they may use discretion about whether prosecution is necessary or not when cases of minor assaults on plants come to their notice." When more significant problems need control, why should police time be wasted pursuing and prosecuting actual effective training? The government needs to enforce laws which truly stop violence against plants. Take action against this ludicrous proposal. Write letters, phone MP's, publish articles, spread the word, and sign petitions. Will you let our nation be harmed?

Fourteen year old, Bethany Robb

MP's Should Get Real on Child Abuse

Press Release: Family First, Thursday, 15 May 2008, 9:08 am

300,000 more signatures were submitted today on a 2nd petition demanding that the government tackle the real causes of child abuse including family breakdown and domestic violence.

"This is in addition to the 350,000 signatures already collected on the 1st petition calling for the scrapping of the anti-smacking law," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "And this total continues to grow."

Organisations who originally supported the petitions, including Family First NZ, For the Sake of our Children Trust, Focus on the Family, Sensible Sentencing Trust, and Unity for Liberty amongst others, have been inundated with further requests for petition forms since the announcement that the first petition opposing the anti-smacking law had fallen short because of invalid votes.

"This is a huge response which has been reflective of the 80+% opposition to the Bradford / Clark anti-smacking law supported by far too many politicians who should have listened to the concerns of NZ parents. They simply abused the child abuse laws, and abused their law making powers. But the people have spoken."

"The inability to deal with the real causes of child abuse while criminalising good parents will be an election issue and Family First is calling on political parties to make quite clear whether they will change the law so that good parents are not criminalised for appropriate and reasonable correction of children."

"The ability for organizers to get over 650,000 signatures on the two petitions shows just how strong the feeling (and frustration) is amongst many NZ families on this issue," says Mr McCoskrie.

A Note from Larry

Today is of course the 1st year anniversary of the passing of the anti-smacking law.

We have collected over 350,000 signatures on Sheryl Savills petition and have handed in approx. 296,000 signatures on my petition to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse.

I suggest we all have a drink of whatever we enjoy, or eat some chocolate, or do something to celebrate that we have come this far in our battle against this legislation and our fight for those being abused.

I am confident that our full celebration is not far away.

You can watch the youtube video clip of the press conference by clicking here.

You can read the text of the press conference here also. (click here)

There are some plans being formulated to collect the remaining signatures we need.

Can we all do our best to finish this as soon as possible?

'Many hands make light work' as they say. If you have an activity you are planning to collect signatures at and need volunteers please let me know and I will put out a schedule of the opportunities for the next few weeks.

Not long to go now and we can all enjoy a little break perhaps.

Warm regards, Larry

Child Abuse Petition Submitted

Press Release: The Kiwi Party - May 14 2008. I will add a few comments in bold.

Time for a new approach on addressing family breakdown, family violence and child abuse

“Today marks the end of 14 months of collecting signatures for a CIR petition in my name to request a referendum on the question, ‘should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?’ The collection of signatures for Sheryl Savill’s petition, which is a separate question entirely, is ongoing and we have now collected approx 350,000 for that petition. I will resubmit those when we are sure we have sufficient to cross the hurdle of the audit process. Our goal is 380,000, see www.unityforliberty.net.nz for a regularly updated signature count.

Today I will deliver approx 300,000 signatures to the Clerk of the House of Representatives for my petition and we will now await (once again) a seemingly bizarre audit process to be carried out according to the CIR Act 1993.

Whatever the outcome of this process, 300,000 signatures represent a huge response from the people of New Zealand who have consistently expressed their concern at our deplorable child abuse and family violence statistics. Absolutely. 300,000 Kiwis have put pen to paper, saying that they are sick and tired of the child-abuse and family-breakdown which continues, unabated - despite the untold millions of tax-payers money that the Government continues to throw at the problem - in the form of Cindy Kiro (Children's Commissioner), and the Families Commission - as well as countless other beurocracies busy accomplishing nothing good.

After nearly nine years of a Government lead by Helen Clark and supported entirely or in part by Jim Anderton, Jeannette Fitzsimons, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters, there is not a single statistic that can be referred to that shows their ‘lame duck policies’ have worked. This is despite huge tax surpluses and a strong economy.

A clear example of this is that we now have the Minister of Social Development openly acknowledging her own department’s report that reveals the poor are worse off under a Labour Government than after the ‘mother of all budgets’ in the 90’s.

This petition and these signatures are calling for greater action on understanding and then addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse.

We begin our question with the call to “understand’, as that is the first step to solving any problem. Clearly this Government does not have any understanding of the real causes of our problems and has simply continued to keep bringing so many ‘ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’ type responses that there is no parking space left. What we really need are some solid fences constructed at the top.

Our social statistics reveal such systemic problems within our society that the Kiwi Party believes the Government should urgently appoint an independent Royal Commission to respond to this. Surely it is time to look for new answers and solutions?

Anti-smacking advocate and nanny state zealot Sue Bradford, now admits (contrary to her earlier claims) that her Anti Smacking Bill was never intended to address the causes of child abuse and reduce our awful statistics for child maltreatment deaths.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense now acknowledges that with 7 child deaths in less than a year, Bradford's Bill is a feel-good fantasy dressed up as a complete waste of time, unless of course Bradford's real plan was to deconstruct the traditional family unit." Wow, I completely agree Larry. A dangerous but brave question to ask.

Families Commission Launches Hypocritical Campaign

"Parenting. The best day's work you'll ever do" reads the large (tax-payer funded) advert at the Bus-stop. And who else would it be, but the Families Commission to give this message to New Zealanders as they drive around the city.

Ironic doesn't even begin to describe the hypocrisy of it. First they back the bill calling for the disempowerment of the majority of Kiwi mums and dads - and then they turn around and say "hey, parenting's the best!".

I have spoken to several thousand Kiwi mums and dads who do use an occasional smack now and then, to correct their children. They do this lovingly - the child understands why he is being smacked, and reconciliation is made. What tool do parents have now, to back up the requests and instructions they give their children?

Do not for one moment believe that the Families Commission is in place to support families - they are a State-run operation that has a huge anti-family agenda. That is, Family as we know it.

I do not doubt the genuine sincerity many of those involved with the commission do have for their job. The majority of these people really do care about child abuse and more functional families in New Zealand - however, they are going about it the wrong way, and are inadvertently working for the destruction of the family.

Self-important beaurocrats sit around tables - some of whom who have never had children, and they theorise about the way families should operate. Look at the list of parenting essentials and you will quickly see that there is no mention of punishment or the fact that children are naughty. Instead, following the humanist manifesto that children are basically good, and that there is no place for negativity in parenting.

Repeal Section 59 - the Facebook Group

Just a quick note. A Facebook Group has been started, calling for the repeal of Section 59.

"Kiwis don't want Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Law. Join this group to show your support for a repeal of this new anti-parental-authority law."

Click here to join.

Statistics NZ Email Explains Counting Process

"Why did the Clerk say that the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking Law was short by 15,500, when we had expected it to be short by approximately 3,000 signatures?"

This is the question many people have been asking.  You would have thought that the Clerk would have issued a press release, explaining the process used to make the calculation.  One of the political bloggers in New Zealand explained what was the most likely reasoning behind the Clerk's decision.  Now, finally, I have got my hands on an email from the office of Statistics NZ, explaining clearly, the process used to discern the quality of the signatures we submitted.  The selection in bold is the key bit you want to read a couple of times.

"I am replying to your enquiry seeking more details on the estimate of the number of registered electors who had signed the Citizens Initiated Referendum in regard to the "anti smacking" legislation.

The results from the sample, show the number of signatures excluded was much larger than you thought it should be.
The explanation is multiple signatures, and the adjustments that need to be made for them.
Because signatures for the petition are collected over a full year, by different collectors, and in different locations, it is possible that some people will sign the petition more than once.

Only signatures from registered electors count towards the required total. Under the legislation, a sample of signatures is taken by the Clerk of the House These signatures are then checked against the Electoral Roll by the Electoral Enrolment Centre.

In deciding whether enough electors have signed the petition, we need to take into account electors who have signed more than once. Only one of their signatures can count.

It is a rare event for both signatures from someone who has signed twice to appear in the same sample. Most signatures in the sample from people who signed twice will show up only as single signatures. It is more difficult to draw both signatures in the sample.

For these reasons, the proportion of electors in the sample does not represent the proportion of electors in the full petition who have signed the petition twice.

To put numbers into the argument we have taken a 1 in 11 sample. The probability that an elector who has signed twice and has both their signatures appear in the sample is about 1 in 121.

So the 158 double signatures in the sample will not represent 11 times 158 or about 1,738 electors who have signed twice. They will represent 121 times 158, or about 19,100 electors who have signed twice.

That is the main reason that the number of exclusions is larger than you expected..."

While we're on the subject of Referendums, below is an excerpt from Larry Baldock's address to The Kiwi Party Conference in Wellington, 5 April 2008...

"Firstly we will change the threshold for a CIR referendum from 10% of those on the electoral role as it is currently to 5% of those who voted at the previous election. The current high threshold of 10% is why so few petitions ever succeed, and that is probably the way the National and Labour parties like it to be.

In the state of California citizens can achieve a binding, yes binding referendum with a petition of only 5% of those who voted for the successful Governor at the last elections. That works out at less than 300,000 signatures in a population of 36 million.

Secondly if any citizen completes a referendum calling for the repeal of legislation already passed by a deaf parliament as we have done then those referenda must be binding also."

Larry goes on in his third and fourth points, calling for regular referendums to be held mid-term, and also for binding referendums on all private member's bills (such as Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill).  I disagree with Larry's third point - Citizen's Initated Referendums (CIR) should take place following the collection of signatures, which should not be restricted to within a pre-specified time-period mid-term.  Also, regarding Binding Citizen's Initiated Referendums, these should be used sparingly.  Statistics show that the more elections/referendums that are held, the fewer citizens participate.

Binding Referendums (not necessarily Citizen's Initiated) must be taken on all bills on moral or ethical issues.  You would find that MPs would be far less likely to introduce extreme bills, as there would be no hope of them passing, thanks to this new democratic process.

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.

Referendum Scaremongering from the Media

"Thousands of pro-smacking signatures invalid" - blares the headline on the NewstalkZB website. Firstly, it is absolutely normal in any petition, for a percentage of signatures to be declared invalid. Secondly, what is this reference to "pro-smacking signatures?" The question asked on the petition, "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand" is as much pro-smacking as Sue Bradford is pro-smacking. The article continues, stating:

"It appears a decision on whether there will be a public referendum on the anti-smacking law will come down to the wire... ...it has been discovered that thousands of the signatures are invalid and there may not be enough to reach the required level." - NewstalkZB, 24 April

TV3 joins in the scaremongering, with the following statement:

"Opponents of the law that bans smacking are waiting anxiously to find out whether they have collected enough valid signatures on a petition to force a citizens-initiated referendum." - TV3, 24 April

Neither of these two statements are correct. The law states that, following the counting of the signatures, the petition organiser is granted an extra two months to collect the number of signatures which has been found to be lacking. In this case, the number of signatures lacking is estimated to be about 3,000. Larry Baldock will have a good buffer of signatures by now, and when the Clerk tells us how many signatures we are short of (or in excess of) the required number, it will not be a problem.

Petition calling for referendum on "anti-smacking" law results unclear

It is unclear whether we have gained enough signatures on the petition calling for a referendum on the 'anti-smacking' law to have it put on the ballot paper.

The Kiwi Party leader put out this press release explaining the results.

Kiwi Party Leader and anti-smacking petition organiser Larry Baldock confirmed today that the preliminary results from Sheryl Savill’s petition to force a referendum on the question, ‘should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in NZ?’ was going to be very close to being just under or over the required threshold.

A total of 324,316 signatures were handed in on Feb 29th. To succeed in forcing a referendum it is required to have the certified signatures of 10% of those enrolled on the electoral role which on that day was 285,027. That would therefore require a success rate of 87.88% from the audit process undertaken by the Chief Registrar of Electors. A random sample of 29,501 signatures was taken and checked individually against the electoral role with 25,754 qualifying as certified correct.

Mr Baldock said “If I did my own simple maths on those figures we would then estimate that we had a success rate of 87.29%

“However I am informed by the Clerk that the Government Statistician needs 90 hours to complete a very complicated mathematical formula to officially ascertain the number of correct signatures. I have no idea why this must take so long and whether there will be any great variation from my simple maths. It begins to look like the Duckworth-Lewis system of determining the results in rain shortened One Day Cricket matches, and we all know how they turn out, usually in the other teams favour! said Mr Baldock.

The final result must be given to the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than next Tuesday April 29th by the Clerk of the House.

_________________________________________

So if you take 87.29% of the 324316 signatures collected we get 283095 correct signatures. That is 1935 signatures short. Lets see what the Clerk has to say on Tuesday.
_____________________________________
Also posted at NZ Debate