MandM header image 2

Monday Night: John Boscawen, Bob McCoskrie and Jim Evans on Amending s59

September 4th, 2009 by Madeleine

Fresh from Facebook’s “5000 Demanding Anti Smacking Law Change” group is this invitation:

ACT MP John Boscawen is holding a series of public debates on the smacking referendum result and how his bill to amend S59 will bring the legislation into line with public opinion.

John Boscawen will be holding the first debate in Phil Goff’s electorate MT Roskill this Monday. He has challenged Phil Goff to front up and defend his position on ignoring the referendum result.

The debate will be held on Monday, September 7 2009, 7.30pm, Hay Park School, 670 Richardson Road, Mt Roskill, Auckland.

Speakers include John Boscawen, Bob McCoskrie and Professor Jim Evans from the Auckland Law School.

If you live in the Auckland area, please do come along and learn more about John Boscawen’s bill while demanding that the politicians listen to the people and change the anti-smacking law.

I’ll be there; Matt, sadly, will be in Tauranga.

Tags:   · · · · · · · · · 5 Comments

Leave a Comment


5 responses so far ↓

  • The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the current Section 59 is a complete and utter dog’s breakfast. He did so in an interview with Michael Laws on RadioLive at about 11:40 am on Friday, 4 September.

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/09/key-knows-its-bad-law.html

  • He said the same thing at last years Family First Forum before he was elected. Back then, when asked if elected would he change the law, he said ‘get that referendum to happen.’

    Talk is cheap.
    .-= My last blog-post ..Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? =-.

  • Talk is SO cheap. This is the PM who endorsed Chester Borrows’ ammendment because the law needs to be crystal clear, and now says that the law can be as clear as mud, but we shouldn’t worry because he will tell the police what to do.

    I hope Larry’s appearance doesn’t lead the issue to be distracted to his push for binding referenda. That would be a disaster.
    .-= My last blog-post ..No, Mr Baldock, not this time: Should referenda be binding on Parliament? =-.

  • It is great to see that Larry Baldock will also be speaking at the meeting. The important thing is to get law change so that parents who choose to smack their children occasionally are not committing a criminal offence as they are at present.

  • Glenn, the meeting went well. Larry highlighted the problem but I do not think he has the total solution but I think he has part of it.

    I believe referenda have their place but have their limitations and downside.

    Larry correctly indemnified the problem. New Zealand has neither a second house or binding referenda. While I strongly support referenda to veto moral legislation that used to be put to a conscience vote, referenda has some definite drawbacks. Prof Richard Ekins explains these very well.

    http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/media/article?id=1930

    In the nine years of the Clark government too much moral or maybe immoral legislative has been passed which I believe would have been vetoed if put to a referendum.

    I believe that Larry’s idea of a referendum on binding referenda is flawed because of the main problem of CIR – getting the wording correct.

    If the government will not consider binding referendum except when they chose the legislation I hope that ACT will carefully consider such policy drawing on expert opinion.