87.6% Vote NO

cross-posted from Star Studded Super Step

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? New Zealand says NO. While an average of polls taken since 2005 indicate a 82.9% level of opposition to the law, tonight's preliminary response blows those polls out of the water. It's official, 87.6% of Kiwis believe that there is a difference between a smack and child abuse. Preliminary results here. Family First is calling on the Government to immediately repeal the law: something Prime Minster John Key has already stated is all but inevitable.

Dave Crampton says,

more people 1,420,959 - voted No than those who party voted all parliamentary parties other than Labour in the 2008 election.

And Scrubone observes,

No wonder the “Yes Vote” were so bitchy about the victory party – they simply had no hope of having one themselves.

And high-profile blogger and pollster David Farrar comments,

1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a referendum not held with a general election... A massive victory for common sense.

Click here to download an Excel spreadsheet with detailed information of the response in each electorate. Prior to the results coming out, I was projecting a modest NO vote between 70% - 80%, however Simeon said he thought it would be 86%. Good on ya Simeon, and thanks for all your tireless work without which this referendum would never have come about.

Great Comments from the Vote No site

Steve Meikle (Christchurch)
The thinking behind Sue Bradford's bil is sloppy, lazy and utterly self righteous. She cant distinguish between smacking a child and beating it to death? It is liberalism gone haywire, which is a shame for I loathe the Right with passion, yet on this Bradford's madness has forced me to agree with them. Something I hate being put in a position of having to do... I definitely voted NO.

Conklin (Chch)
Good parents have nothing to fear, huh Judy. Who defines 'good'? 3 options, I reckon for the definition of the universal 'good'. Originally the word good, comes from God, but he advocates physical punishment many times in the Bible, so it can't be that one. Second would be the majority of society, but the majority of society (still 85%) thinks smacking is 'good', so it can't be society either. The third option is government, who in overruling God and the majority of society have installed their own version of 'good', so 'good' is whatever the government defines it to be, so lets get rid of that confusing word 'good' and substitute it the way it was meant. Rather than 'good parents have nothing to fear', it should be 'parents that act in a way that the government wants them to act, have nothing to fear'. Sounds a but like fascism to me.

Paul (Auckland)
I say NO to New Zealand's social engineering criminal Sue Bradford

Check out many more comments over at the Your Views page on the Vote No website.

Painfully Simple

Gotta love the Vote No campaign's latest full page advert that went out in major daily newspapers just recently...

Check out their excellent website: www.voteno.org.nz. Leaves the yes vote blog thing for DEAD.

Sue Reid: Smacking laws were never about the real issue of child abuse

This in the NZ Herald today.

It is a shame that we have a Families Commission that is driven by ideology rather than listening to families.

Chief commissioner Jan Pryor espouses her beliefs that "positive parenting should never include a smack" (Herald, April 3).

Her so-called justification for the anti-smacking laws are inflammatory and continue to vilify good parents who may use a smack as part of good parental correction.

As a mother of two young children, I resent the constant barrage that fully funded, power-packed organisations such as the Families Commission can constantly deliver from their lofty soap-boxes.

One can be left wondering who represents mums like me who are focused on the task of raising good, law-abiding and positive contributors to society. Like many other mums, I know that I wish to parent within a sensible legal framework and we owe it to good parents to get this law right.

The new flawed law has tried to link a smack on the bottom with child abuse of the worst kind and has put good parents in the same category as rotten parents who are a danger to their kids and to society.

Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change - the same rate as before the change. The smacking laws were never about addressing the real issue of child abuse but to undermine and criminalise good parents.

Contrary to Pryor's comments, the new law did introduce a new criminal offence - smacks for the purpose of correction, no matter how light, are a crime.

Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for "minor acts of physical discipline" and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated - yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.

And there has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF's notifications, but the cases warranting further investigation haven't increased - in other words, valuable resources and time are taken away from the front line to deal with the real cases of abuse.

Family First NZ has plenty of evidence on its website of families being investigated and traumatised for complaints of light smacking, including parents who are referred to CYF by so-called helping agencies when they are simply seeking help, and of children ringing CYF to complain about their parents - imagine what that is like for a family.

Pryor asks families to seek help but in a culture of being labelled "lowest common denominator", this will do nothing to support and foster good parenting.

She says "there is no legal justification for the use of force to correct a child's behaviour", so why does "positive parenting" not include correction? As a mother I need to be able to teach my child right from wrong and it is an ongoing process to "correct" my child's behaviour - society expects me to fulfil this role.

We can all lament the daily cases in the media whereby individuals have not "corrected" their behaviour and have become a blight on society. Many parents would testify to aspects that are less than positive in the training of a child for the adult world.

I am sure the child does not see "time out" in a positive light nor see grounding as positive. Parents are often seen in negative light when they proceed with knowing best what will work for their child.

The role of parent is set apart from other relationships such as in the workplace or a sports team. Parents have the reserved responsibility to raise, train and shape the will and character of their child to maturity. Adults have already mastered that task - so the argument that Pryor puts forth about smacking another adult is null and void.

It is important to progress through to a referendum in July. This issue continues to be a strong, unresolved matter for most parents. After all, this was a citizens' initiated referendum and the democratic process needs to complete its cycle by asking the voting public, "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?"

People who don't like the question in the referendum simply don't like the answer they come to.

Organisations such as the Families Commission would better serve families when they consider the attitudes, needs and requirements of families rather than using their government-funded weight to impose a flawed ideology on to good, healthy, functioning families.

* Sue Reid is a researcher and writer for Family First NZ.

Government's Stance on Referendum Arrogant

Press Release: Family First, Saturday, 23 August 2008
Family First Slams Govt’s Desperate Delay Tactics on Referendum

Family First NZ says the government is guilty of being arrogant, hypocritical and patronising by suggesting that the Referendum on the anti-smacking law cannot be organised until mid-2009.
“The government is yet to announce the date of the general election involving the two-vote system under MMP and due to take place within 3 months, yet it says it cannot organise a one-vote Referendum within 10 months,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“The attempt to delay democracy by this government is breath-taking. This is a cynical attempt to muzzle the voice of NZ’ers who are opposed to the hugely unpopular and highly flawed anti-smacking law.”
“More than 10% of voters have met the high threshold of asking for a Referendum and recent polls suggest that between 80-90% oppose the legislation. It makes complete sense both economically and in terms of timing to do it at the same time as the general election.”
According to the Cabinet papers, the lame excuses for not holding the Referendum during the election include

• it would take issuing officers longer to issue the two or three voting papers to each voter
• voters would take longer to mark their papers
• voters would be confused by the additional voting papers

The Cabinet papers also acknowledge a simple lack of organisation caused problems at the last Referendum. It says “At the 1999 general election, voters were instructed to place the two CIR voting papers, together with the Parliamentary voting paper, into a single ballot box for each electorate. This, together with the fact that the CIR voting papers were not distinctly coloured, contributed to significant delays to the sort and count of voting papers.”
“In other words, the problems experienced by the last Referendum held on an election day simply came down to poor organisation.”
“The government simply refuses to acknowledge the opinion of NZ’ers,” says Mr McCoskrie, “and is doing everything it can to bury this issue. It shows a complete lack of respect for the due democratic process in NZ.”

The Press on the Referendum

I'll just quickly run over this article and make a few comments in bold.
Petition earns referendum on `child-smacking' law - The Press

New Zealanders will be asked to vote on the so-called anti-smacking law next year.
So-called? Well, that was what the Green Party called it initially.

Parliament's Clerk of the House said yesterday that a petition organised by Christian political activists had enough valid signatures to force a referendum.
Hah, just couldn't help yourselves could you? Yes, the petition question was written by Sheryl Savill who works for Focus on the Family. But look at the huge support nationwide, from a huge variety of people and groups.

Justice Minister Annette King said planning had begun to hold a postal vote on section 59 of the Crimes Amendment Act.

"The advice to me has been that it should be a postal referendum, and my latest advice is that it will take until about mid-next year to organise such a referendum properly," she said.

An audit of the petition found that 310,000 of the 390,000 signatures were valid.

That represented 25,000 more signatures than the 10 per cent of the national electorate required for a non-binding referendum.

Parliament's Speaker, Margaret Wilson, is expected to present the petition to the House on Tuesday, after which the Government will have one month to announce a date.

The referendum question will be: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Petition organiser Larry Baldock, who founded the Christian-based Kiwi Party, said the vote should be held with this year's general election.

The Government has ruled this out, saying the petition had come too late and it would best be held as a postal ballot next year.

"It has been a long battle to assert the right of all New Zealanders to be heard on this controversial issue," Baldock said.

"Quite frankly, in a democracy it should not require so much effort. The referendum should be held at this year's election.

"None of the reasons being given by the Prime Minister for delaying it make any sense at all, and are simply a tactic for her to try to avoid this being an election issue."

Family First director Bob McCroskrie said the petition showed the strength of the opposition to the law.

Green Party MP Sue Bradford, whose child-discipline bill last year removed the defence of reasonable force from the Crimes Act, said she welcomed the ongoing debate.
Hah, did she? That's easy to believe.

"They put an enormous amount of effort, time and money into it, so it is not a surprise," Bradford said.

"We will continue to engage in the debate. It is all part of the process of changing the culture of violence in this country.

"The fact that these people are so determined to change the law back again just gives us more of an opportunity to educate people as to why we shouldn't be able to legally hit our children."

Bradford said the referendum question was misleading. "There is no such offence in New Zealand law as smacking. There never was and there isn't now. There is an offence of assault on a child."
Then why was your original bill drawn up as an "Anti-Smacking bill"?

She said that while the referendum was not binding, she would not trust a future National government not to change the law, despite the party's current support for the legislation after a last-minute deal with Labour.

"I've heard National MPs out and about basically dog-whistling to the Christian Right," she said.

National leader John Key has ruled out overturning the law if he becomes prime minister unless there was evidence of good parents being prosecuted.

Figures released by police have so far shown that has not happened.

Key did not return a call for comment yesterday.

Clark told Parliament in June that she had received "strong advice" from the Ministry of Justice that it was too late for a referendum to be held with this year's election.

She said the Government had accepted the ministry's advice that it would cause too much confusion, and a postal ballot next year was preferable.

The ministry said a postal referendum could cost taxpayers between $4.8 million and $6.4m.

A previous petition to force a referendum was ruled invalid when it was found it had failed to collect enough signatures.
No, it was not ruled invalid, and it was not a previous petition. It was the same petition for which we were granted another 2 months - as is usual practice, to make up the short-falling.

Family First: Success on Referendum

Family First Media Release 22 August 2008
NZ’ers Deliver Strong Message on Anti-Smacking Law

Family First NZ is welcoming the success of the petition demanding a Referendum on the flawed anti-smacking law.

“To reach the required 285,000 signatures is difficult enough, but the final result shows that an extra 25,000
signatures have been attained. This is evidence of just how strong the opposition to this law is,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“The evidence is pouring in that good families are being both persecuted and also prosecuted with eight prosecutions for minor acts of physical discipline in a recent six month period.”

“The rate of CYF notifications has sky-rocketed yet actual cases of child abuse found are remaining the same, and in some areas like the Waikato, actually falling.”

“The anti-smacking law has failed miserably. You know a law is flawed when it fails to address the problem it was supposed to, and implicates good families in the process. Supporters of the law are trying to herald its success because they incorrectly claim nobody has been prosecuted. But we actually want a law that works and catches actual child abuse!”

“The only reason the law was passed in the first place was because the two major parties were whipped to vote for it – which is a little ironic in itself, being an anti-smacking law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers according to research), and to tackle the real causes of child abuse.

Clerk Confirms: Referendum to go Ahead

Kiwi Party Press Release
2pm, 22 August 2008

Kiwi Party Leader and CIR Petition organiser Larry Baldock welcomed the news today that the petition has been certified by the Clerk of the House of Representatives to have achieved sufficient signatures to force a referendum on the question, “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

“This is great news and a huge victory,” said Mr Baldock.
“It has been a long battle to assert the right of all New Zealanders to be heard on this controversial issue. Quite frankly in a democracy it should not require so much effort. I want to pay tribute to Sheryl Savill who was prepared to put her name to the petition, and the thousands of volunteers that have helped us collect over 390,000 signatures,” Mr Baldock said.

The clerk of the house has declared that 310,000 signatures were certified as valid.
This means there were over 25 000 more signatures than the 285 027 required by the CIR Act 1993 to force a referendum.

“The referendum should be held at this year’s election. None of the reasons being given by the Prime Minister for delaying it make any sense at all, and are simply a tactic for her to try and avoid this being an election issue. She will not drown out the voice of the people and should realise there is no point further angering everyone by delaying the inevitable.

“Justice delayed is justice denied, Prime Minister. 110 MPs should never have ignored 80% of the population in the first place, and the right thing to do now is to let every Kiwi have their say as quickly as possible.

“The Kiwi Party have made it our number one priority to ensure that voice of the people in this referendum is respected. There is ample evidence that good mums and dads are now being prosecuted by this new law, while there is no evidence that it has led to any reduction in the real child abuse we are all concerned about,” said Mr Baldock.

www.thekiwiparty.org.nz

National and the Referendum

"We support the Referendum but...
We will ignore it anyway. Hahaha"

from www.stuff.co.nz

"prime minister smacks of arrogance" - John Key

With the numbers looking right for a referendum on the "anti-smacking" law to be given the go ahead the PM is getting nervous.

She said to the NZ Herald this morning "Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible".

But John Key is fighting back in the name of democracy saying "the referendum should take place at the general election in 2008 and quite frankly the behaviour of the prime minister smacks of arrogance and wasteful behaviour."

"You can't tell me that it will take more than two months to organise one simple question to be added to the ballot paper." he continues.

John Key then says "But this is about democracy, the right of people to be heard and it's the absolute height of arrogance that the prime minister is going to use a technicality within the law to circumvent people's rights to express their views on the issue."

But John Key has still made no commitments to overturn the law.

Rodney Hide has also joined in with Key saying

"Labour's anti-smacking legislation strikes at the very heart of how Kiwi parents raise their children, with both National and Labour saying they know best.

"ACT doesn't accept that they do - ACT backs parents, and we back Kiwis having a say about what they think the law should be," Mr Hide said.

Why do Anti-smackers get violent?

During the final days of collecting to get a democratic referendum on the "anti-smacking" law a disturbing story comes through from North Auckland.

This from Stuff.co.nz

Anti-smakers lose their cool

By GEMMA REDDELL - Rodney Times | Thursday, 12 June 2008

Anti-smacking supporters got violent at a gathering of signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum campaign last Saturday.

Whangaparaoa resident Arna Mountain was gathering signatures for the petition when two women, on separate occasions, started abusing her.

She says many people were eager to sign the two petitions, which ask ‘should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’ and ‘should the government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse?’

She says she was shocked by what she sees as violent, anti-democratic behaviour.

"These petitions are asking for the democratic right to vote on what has been a contentious issue, but these two women seemed determined to intimidate the public and those collecting the signatures."

She says the first woman took offence to the gathering of the signatures and started yelling.

How dare we smack our children, she shouted. Mrs Mountain says she then started telling bystanders to "roll up and sign the petition that allows you to abuse your children and then kill them, yes murder them, come on sign up."

Later she was approached by another woman who asked if this was the petition to sign, then grabbed it, tore off the signed part and ripped it into pieces.

The destroyed petitions

"The woman then took the clipboard which had other completed forms underneath and took off.

I called her to give back the clipboard and the legal document she had torn. She threw it across the entrance-way and yelled about how smacking children was wrong," she says.

Mrs Mountain says that while she is shocked at the intensity of the behaviour, there are obviously a few people who are mistaken about what the petition is about.

"There are a few people who are completely unaware of the statistics that show that abuse and parental correction are completely different issues. No one in their right mind wants to abuse children. She says the vast majority of people are still against this law."

They received 144 signatures in a two-and-a-half hour period in Whangaparaoa.

Petition forms can be downloaded from thekiwiparty.org.nz under ‘referendum’ or from Orewa and Whangaparaoa libraries. The last date for signing is June 15.

LET'S BRING THIS PUPPY HOME

2 WEEKS TO GO - TO MAKE THEM LISTEN

The GOOD NEWS is that in 2 weeks we won't be sending you any more emails about collecting signatures for the petition on the anti-smacking legislation. Yay!!!!

The NOT SO GOOD NEWS is that the deadline to collect the remaining number of signatures to absolutely ensure that the Referendum happens is in 2 weeks .

Our target is 370,000 signatures to ensure that there are more than enough signatures to survive however tough the 'audit process' is. ( just over 12,000 to collect )

And remember - 390,000 would match the number in the film Amazing Grace where William Wilberforce rolled out the petition in the House of Commons and shouted, “No matter how loud you shout you will not drown out the voice of the people!”

Could I encourage you to simply
1. print out the petition form CLICK HERE
2. carry with you over the weekend and next week
3. and simply check with people you socialise with whether they would like to sign the petition. You'll be surprised how many people have wanted to but simply didn't have the opportunity!

Thanks for your efforts - and have a great 'long weekend'!

Family First Team

"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

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]

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.

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.

Hypocrisy from Peter Dunne

Hypocrisy Again From Mr Dunne

Peter Dunne is in trouble after saying that the people should decide in a referendum on MMP. This is very inconsistent as he would hate to see a referendum on the "anti-smacking" law.

Larry Baldock picked up on it and put out this press release.

_____________________________________________________

Peter Dunne is reported in the Dominion Post as saying it is "time for the people to decide." He refers to the need to have a referendum on the review of the MMP system of New Zealand politics.

Mr Dunne fails to acknowledge that there is already a referendum waiting in the wings. It has the numbers - over 600,000 combined signatures from the voting public of New Zealand, calling for:

a.. A referendum on the controversial anti-smacking laws. b.. The establishment of a Royal Commission into indentifying the real causes of family breakdown, dysfunction and child abuse" says Larry Baldock, leader of Kiwi Party.

"Let's have one referendum at a time. The people have called for it and good democratic governance would not stand in the way of it being held."

Mr Dunne, in his apparent new found respect for 'the people to decide,' can now declare his intention to respect the referendum on repealing the anti-smacking bill he voted for, in order to be legitimately consistent".

Mr Dunne suggests that "MMP is working out in practice to be a little different from what was intended..."

The Kiwi Party suggests that is because party leaders like Mr Dunne have ignored the will of those that elected them and have signed up to support a Government ideology that does not have the support of the vast majority of New Zealanders.

There are many voters who see the passing of controversial laws as 'somewhat different than what they intended their chosen party to vote for'.

"Yes, "It's time", Mr Dunne to let the people to decide - so let's see how the citizens of New Zealand respond to the Referendum right in front of them".

"We can then monitor the politicians response in due course". Says Mr Baldock.