| Response to Family First | 24th October 2008 | ||||
Dear Chuck,
You may have seen Family First's press release yesterday or had someone comment on it.I hope this will help give more clarity for you or your friends.
Kiwi Party leader responds to Family First’s concerns expressed in their press release entitled "Anti-Smacking Petition About Policy, Not Party."
Larry Baldock, organizer of the anti-smacking petition and leader of the Kiwi Party said today the anti-smacking petition was about achieving policy change not just a referendum. "Given the reluctance of the majority of MPs to listen to the voice of the people in the first place, further lobbying is unlikely to achieve the repeal of the law," he said.
He further denied any wrong in their mail out campaign to those connected with the petition. “First, let me assure everyone we do not hold any copies of the successful petition which succeeded in forcing a referendum on the question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
“We made no photo-copies of those forms. All were handed in to the Clerk of the House and are now in Governments archives.
“What I do have in my possession are the petition forms in my name which asked the question, “Should the Government give urgent priority to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ?” Unfortunately although we collected just over 300,000 signatures, the Clerk deemed there were insufficient to trigger a referendum and the forms were returned to me, their legal owner. In keeping with sound legal advice, I will ensure these addresses are not used for any purpose other than the original intent, namely to repeal the ‘Anti-smacking’ law and address the real causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse. Most of the signatures on this second petition were also signatories on the first and are interested in both objectives.
“In the letter we are sending to those who signed the second petition we make it clear the Kiwi Party is motivated to fulfill the intended goals of the original purposes behind both petitions.
“I fully understand Family First’s concerns about maintaining its status as an apolitical lobby group. I have appreciated the close working relationship I have had with Bob McCoskrie throughout the referendum campaign and acknowledge the important role Family First played in helping achieve our goal of securing a referendum. Bob has built a very effective organisation and it's voice is well established in the public arena.
“I also offer my opinion that a lobby group on its own will struggle to achieve a law change on its own from outside parliament. The only way to have any law changed is to have sufficient MPs willing to vote in support of that change within parliament. I made it clear at the completion of collecting signatures that there now had to be a political solution, and my efforts would be focused on achieving the success of the Kiwi Party. This is so we might be in a position to negotiate respect for the outcome of the referendum and to establish a Royal Commission in line with the second petition request.
“If everyone remains apolitical we will be defeated every time. In fact that is the sad history of many of our political battles over the past 20 years. As an example we can see the 'green movement' with its many lobby and pressure groups has a political arm having strong support for political action.
“Imagine Green Peace saying we do not have anything to do with the Green Party because we are an apolitical lobby group and are not aligned or associated with any political party. Yeah right!
“I don’t think for a minute Green Peace, Forests and Bird and all manner of save-the-planet organizations do not actively encourage their members to vote for the Greens. Without their support the Green party would be doomed to fail.
“As Mr McCoskrie has pointed out, many political parties use all sorts of lists to make contact with possible voters in elections. Perhaps the stark difference in this case is that we are not using taxpayer funds to do so. We accept there may be some who do not want to receive our communication. They may therefore discard it. But having personally heard the concerns of at least 20,000 to 25,000 of those who signed the petitions I believe most will look at our final objectives and accept our sincere motives.
Larry Baldock
Party Leader.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||