Media Release
22 June 2009
Vote NO Referendum Website Launched

Groups opposing the anti-smacking legislation have launched their website www.voteNO.org.nz for the upcoming anti-smacking Referendum.

“The website features background information, frequently asked questions, significant quotes, cartoons, polls and downloadable resources,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“One of the highlights of the website is a 90 second video presentation by radio and tv personality Simon Barnett. For busy people, Simon summarises the purpose of the Referendum and why kiwis should vote NO.”

“The ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section is a concise factual analysis on the anti-smacking law, why and how it should be amended, what are the real causes of child abuse, and how should we tackle our unacceptable rate of child abuse and deaths.”

The website is supported by a number of community and advocacy groups including Family First NZ, Sensible Sentencing Trust, the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ, For the Sake of our Children Trust, Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust, Family and Child Trust, Focus on the Family NZ, Crosspower Ministries, Lifespring Pasefika Trust, and Unity for Liberty who were responsible for collecting a large chunk of the 310,000 signatures which forced the Referendum.

“More features will be added to the website as the Referendum gets closer but this website will quickly deal with the many misleading statements that have been made recently regarding the anti-smacking law and the Referendum,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Ultimately it’s not about the organisations or individuals supporting the website but the 300,000+ people who signed a petition demanding a say on this issue, and the polls that show that an overwhelming majority of kiwis who don’t equate a smack with child abuse but want the real causes of child abuse tackled.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>