Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Lobbying on Section 59

Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill goes back before the House tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you'd like to take the opportunity to engage in some last minute lobbying, a coalition of children's groups (including Barados, Plunket, and Save the Children, as well as Unicef and the Women's Refuge) have established a website from which you can email MPs and encourage them to support the bill:


If you have an opinion on the bill, I suggest you use it.

(Hat tip: just about everybody)


Oh dear... and who wants to bet they go in the same virtual recycle bin as the acres of 'astroturf' generated by the Maxim Institute around the CUB?

To put it bluntly, MP's executive secretaries and electorate agents aren't fuck-wits. If you're that serious about this - or any other issue - put in the time and effort required to write a thoughtful, civil communication that's been produced by a human being rather than a lobbyist's spam-bot.

After all, isn't the whole point of the exercise to influence a real live human being?

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 3/27/2007 12:53:00 PM

Probably - but this close to the day, there's not much option for reaching MP's quickly.

Meanwhile, I did my lobbying by snail-mail weeks ago.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/27/2007 01:02:00 PM


This close to the day, I think we've seen evidence that if this act passes it's going to be in spite of not because of a pro-repeal campaign that is a near textbook example of how not to win hearts and minds. Tony Milne (sorry, haven't figured out how to insert links) has done an excellent and brutally frank analysis over on I See Red.

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 3/27/2007 01:11:00 PM

I agree, Idiot. I've posted on what people can do to express their views on the legislation through the same website at: http://insolentprick.blogspot.com/2007/03/direct-action-on-section-59.html

Posted by Insolent Prick : 3/27/2007 01:17:00 PM

First of all im not trying to be political here.

There seems to be agreement on both sides that the rate of violence agasint children in New Zealand is far too high.

Agaisnt this bill there seems to be 2 big arguments, "making it illegal wont change anything for the people who really are a problem" and "this is government interfearing is parents rights far too much"

If these 2 statements are correct, what acctually can be done to reduce the rate of violence agaisnt children? Has anyone whos agasint this bill made a better suggestion?

Posted by Anonymous : 3/29/2007 10:18:00 PM