• Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    “That’s some of the reasons why the ACT party stands for the repeal of this anti-smacking legislation, and that’s why I do too,” said Mr Tashkoff Press Release: Friday, 26 June 2009
  • Recent Posts

  • Networkedblogs

  • Recent Comments

  • Christian Blog Topsites

    Christian Blog Topsites
  • Tags

  • Don’t Vote Labour

  • Unity For Liberty

    Anti-Smacking Petition
    Signature Counter


    July 2015
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov    
  • abort73

    For more information about abortion and what you can do to help, please visit... Abort73.com http://www.abort73.com/
  • Archives

  • Statcounter since February 2008

  • online counter
  • Meta

  • Blog Catalog since May 2008


    By admin | November 17, 2014


    PARENTS - Legal Expert

    Media Release 17 November 2014
    An independent legal analysis of court cases involving prosecutions for smacking since the anti-smacking law was passed has found that the anti-smacking law is complicated, difficult to apply, and lower courts are getting it wrong.

    The analysis by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer also says that statements made by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children are inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the application of that section in practice.

    The review of cases by prominent constitutional lawyer Mai Chen was obtained by Family First NZ which has been campaigning against the law and calling for amendments to protect good families and parents.

    “With the amount of time and investment that Family First has invested in this issue over the past 7 years in order to protect good parents from a flawed law, we felt it was time to get a completely independent expert legal opinion of whether our concerns held any merit. Our concerns and efforts to get the law fixed have been completely justified,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “This (case) shows that although Mr DC had only “lightly” smacked his
    sons on the odd occasion, he had nevertheless committed a crime
    and was not protected by the new section 59….”

    “Mr Young was therefore convicted for his actions in “lightly” smacking
    his daughter….”

    Legal Analysis – Chen Palmer

    “It also flies in the face of assertions made by the Prime Minister John Key, the police, and the ‘Latta Review’ which argued that none of the cases highlighted by Family First to ‘bolster their argument that good parents were being made into criminals for smacking stood up to scrutiny’. The Review has again been proved to be worthless.”

    Key statements in the Opinion also include:

    An analysis of section 59 and the relevant case law shows that non-lawyers, including parents and the Police, struggle to understand and apply section 59. The cases also demonstrate that even lawyers and judges struggle to apply section 59 correctly, with examples of cases going to the District Court, the High Court and then being overturned by the Court of Appeal.”

    Case law confirms that the section 59 amendment has criminalised the use of force by a parent against their child for the purposes of correction.”

    Parents will struggle to know whether their actions constitute an offence under section 59 or not, and in cases of doubt, the police will prosecute and leave it up to the Court to determine. This is demonstrated in the cases we have analysed.”

    The law is complicated and difficult to apply, such that even the lower courts are getting it wrong.”

    Smacking a child for the purpose of correction is illegal regardless of whether the Police decide to prosecute or not.” – despite John Key telling parents that a light smack is ok.

    Family First will now ask the government to honour their promise that if good parents were criminalised, they would change the law. Family First will also seek further legal advice on challenging the law.
    “The smacking law has been so bereft of success that supporters have
    had to commandeer a claim that no-one has been prosecuted by it -
    which has now been shown to be patently false.”

    Family First NZ

    “It is disappointing that the politicians have been so quick to mislead kiwi families,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “The smacking law has been so bereft of success that supporters have had to commandeer a claim that no-one has been prosecuted by it – which has now been shown to be patently false.”

    Please consider supporting the work of Family First NZ. This legal Opinion has been obtained at significant cost to Family First NZ.

    We will not be giving up on this issue while it continues to harm good parents raising great kids. Thank you for standing with us.

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    P.S. NOTE: A number of the cases profiled have been included in our two documentaries – see www.protectgoodparents.org.nz
    (My Mummy’s a Criminal 2011 & Mum on a Mission 2014)

    Topics: Section 59 - The Bill | No Comments »

    Greens Take Nanny State To A New Level

    By admin | September 24, 2014


    Greens Take Nanny State To A New Level

    Family First NZ is labelling the Green’s ‘welcome package’ for newborns policy as wasteful and misdirected.

    “This policy is taking ‘nanny state’ to a new level but indicates just how much the Greens want to intervene in family life,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “It is a complete waste of taxpayer money to give nappies, bibs and blankets to millionaire families and other families who are able to cope with those needs already.”

    “It would make far greater sense to target those resources at young and low income families who are starting out as a family. Targeted assistance is far more appropriate. It is also disappointing that the Greens oppose income-splitting which would greatly help single income families,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “This policy is simply a stepping stone to having a social worker allocated to every child from day one – another level of ‘nanny state’.”

    In Family First’s Value Your Vote resource, the Greens stated that Government, not parents, have primary responsibility for nurturing, raising and educating their children.


    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Sign up now to received FREE email updates from Family First of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/email-updates/

    Topics: News Media/Press Releases | No Comments »

    Greens & Labour Politicising Bullying in Schools

    By admin | September 5, 2014


    Greens & Labour Politicising Bullying in Schools

    Family First NZ says that both the Greens and Labour are wanting to politicise and sexualise school children under the guise of bullying programmes rather than deal with the school bullying issue as it should be dealt with.

    Labour has said that it will make it mandatory for schools to report bullying in order to support ‘glbti’ youth in schools. And the Greens have published a report on bullying based on a small number of schools with the focus being only on what ‘the schools are doing to create a safe environment for young queer people in New Zealand’, using confusing terms such as ‘gender diversity’ and ‘trans identities’.

    “These polices are not inclusive, they are exclusive. They only focus on a very small group of students who are being politicised by politicians. Schools are being sexualised by the agenda of these politicians. This is not the best way to deal with bullying and mental health issues experienced by all school students,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “It is not surprising that schools had better things to do than respond to the Green party report. Schools are keen to deal with the bullying issue but they are taking a full school community approach.”

    “It also ignores the far greater proportion of students who are bullied for the more common reasons of body image, racial background, disabilities, and academic success or failure.”

    “In fact, the focus is flawed. A large Australian study has called for a focus on the bully rather than the person being bullied. This is a more appropriate and effective approach. Bullies themselves often needed help, dealing with the causes of their depressive, aggressive and anti-social behaviours. Bullying by children is considered a stepping stone for criminal behaviours, increasing the risk of police contact when they become adults by more than half. Children who bully also increase their risk of later depression by 30% and require greater support for behaviour change through targeted approaches.”

    “Parental involvement is key, but Labour and the Greens seem keen to exclude parents from this process,” says Mr McCoskrie. “That should concern all families.”

    “While some politicians are obsessed with so-called ‘homophobia’, schools and students want the focus to be on all students who are bullied, for whatever reason, and who deserve support and protection. Anti-bullying programs that work place the focus on zero tolerance for any reason, and target the bully.”

    “It’s disappointing that the Green and Labour policies and ideology are clouding their judgment and ability to effectively deal with bullying in schools.”ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/email-updates/


    Needing help for your home schooling journey:



    Here are a couple of links to get you started home schooling:

    Information on getting startedhttp://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/


    Information on getting an exemptionhttp://hef.org.nz/exemptions/

    This link is motivational: http://hef.org.nz/2012/home-schooling-what-is-it-all-about/

    Exemption Form online: http://hef.org.nz/2012/home-schooling-exemption-form-now-online/

    Coming Events: http://hef.org.nz/2013/some-coming-events-for-home-education-during-2013-2/

    Beneficiaries: http://hef.org.nz/2013/where-to-for-beneficiary-families-now-that-the-social-security-benefit-categories-and-work-focus-amendment-bill-has-passed-its-third-reading/

    Topics: Press Release/Media | No Comments »


    By admin | September 4, 2014

    What happens when your teenage daughter decides to go out with a boy racer in the middle of the night. You ask CYF for help but they won’t help and say that you simply have an anger problem! And then when you do take action as any responsible parent would do, your child makes wild claims about what you’ve done to her. Why did the Prime Minister’s ‘Latta Review’ completely misrepresent the facts of this case? Are the politicians hiding the true effect of the anti-smacking law?

    WATCH this 4-minute clip. And don’t think that it couldn’t happen to you or other parents of teens.

    “What causes me concern is that very good parents who have no history of criminal offending do appear from time to time to be particularly caught up in a net which has been cast too wide.” Michael Bott (Lawyer)

    This seventh short clip is this week’s example of “10 Good Reasons to Change the Anti-Smacking Law.”

    Watch the FULL documentary (click on image below)

    WHAT CAN YOU DO? At the very least, find out which political parties will fix the law to protect good parents.

    It’s time we held the politicians to account on a failed law which is doing more harm than good. It’s time the politicians listened to YOU!

    Kind regards

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director – Family First NZ

    Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »

    10 Good Reasons to Change the Anti-Smacking Law – Reason #3

    By admin | August 19, 2014

    Reason #3 – “Jack & Jenny” Like 10 Good Reasons to Change the Anti-Smacking Law – Reason #3 – “Jack & Jenny” on Facebook

    Hi Barbara

    Charged with ‘excessive chores’. Charged with ‘kidnapping’ when preventing a child from harming themselves. Charged with ‘excessive time-out’. Charged for giving a child a haircut. That’s what ‘Jack and Jenny’ faced. They even encouraged ‘Jenny’ to divorce her husband and take her youngest son out of the country! And yet after being completely acquitted of 15 charges after a four week trial and just 25 minutes deliberation by the jury, it took a further 9 months (and almost 30 months after their children were first removed) before CYF allowed the family to be reunited.


    “I’m a housewife. I’m a mum. They made me feel like NZ’s Most Wanted.”
    “Jenny” (Mother)
    “I was embarrassed to be a NZ’er.”
    (Head Juror)

    This fifth short clip is this week’s example of “10 Good Reasons to Change the Anti-Smacking Law.”

    It’s the evidence that politicians and the media don’t want you to see. It’s the evidence John Key asked for – but won’t watch. So take a couple of minutes to watch and judge for yourself. click on image (above) to view

    To see ALL the evidence, go to our updated and new look website www.protectgoodparents.org.nz . You can view the full documentaries “Mum on a Mission” (2014) and “My Mummy’s A Criminal” (2011).

    It’s time we held the politicians to account on a failed law which is doing more harm than good. It’s time the politicians listened to YOU!

    Kind regards

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director – Family First NZ

    Go to www.valueyourvote.org.nz

    Topics: Section 59 - MPs | No Comments »

    Mum on a Mission (2014) Full Version

    By admin | August 18, 2014

    Topics: Youtube | No Comments »

    Smacking Doco Proves Real Harm of Law to Families

    By admin | August 18, 2014


    Smacking Doco Proves Real Harm of Law to Families

    Family First NZ has just released a new documentary on the anti-smacking law “MUM ON A MISSION” featuring the experiences of five more families. This is the sequel to the documentary from 2011 “MY MUMMY’S A CRIMINAL” which was viewed on YouTube over 12,300 times (despite being a 30 minute documentary) and 10,000 copies of the DVD distributed.

    “In 2007, politicians changed the laws making it illegal for parents to use smacking as form of correction with their children. The referendum in 2009 revealed that 87% of New Zealanders opposed this move believing that it wouldn’t solve genuine child abuse – which it hasn’t – but would lead to good parents being unjustly persecuted. To assuage these fears, Prime Minister John Key stated that ‘If I see good parents getting criminalised for lightly smacking their children for the purposes of discipline, I’m going to change the law.’ Here’s the evidence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Despite assurances to the contrary, families have been torn apart, accused of lying and dragged through the courts with disturbing results. One parent says ‘Good parents won’t be affected by the law… they’ll just be removed from being parents’ and another couple complain that ‘Of course CYF had to investigate… but they didn’t actually investigate anything’.”

    “Since the anti-smacking law was introduced, the rate of serious child assaults has increased by more than 80%. This documentary lifts the lid on a flawed law whose real effect has been hidden by state agencies such as CYF and the Police, and by politicians,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    There is also an accompanying website which contains more detailed information and examples www.protectgoodparents.org.nz. The website has additional resources for families including legal advice for parents; the experience of other parents not included in the documentary; why the ‘Nigel Latta’ review was flawed, misleading, and factually incorrect; the research on why smacking is not child abuse; the experience of Australia which has not banned smacking; and what the real causes of child abuse are.

    Family First will be launching the “10 Good Reasons to Change the Anti-Smacking Law” which highlights the 10 families featured in the two documentaries.

    Family First continues to call for a change to the law to decriminalise non-abusive smacking for the purposes of correction.

    VIEW THE DOCUMENTARY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7chx3ifSLo


    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Topics: News Media/Press Releases | No Comments »

    Push For Gender Confusion In Schools

    By admin | August 18, 2014

    Push For Gender Confusion In Schools

    Family First NZ is warning schools about an agenda to bring gender confusion in to schools in areas such as changing rooms, sports teams and school uniforms.

    Auckland University’s Adolescent Health Research Group and Rainbow Youth are recommending to schools that

    “Among the implications of these types of proposals is that sex-specific facilities, including changing rooms, showers and toilets could no longer be directed on the basis of a child’s actual biological sex,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Students could pick the toilet or changing room or sports team or uniform of the gender with which they identify at that time.”

    “But the expectation of parents and the children themselves is to see students of the same gender in places like toilets and changing rooms.”

    “The controversial proposals are unnecessary and gives the opportunity, for example, for male students who pretend to be transgender an alibi to use girl’s toilets, showers, and changing rooms.”

    “In view of the confusion experienced overseas by such rules, it is not surprising that the United Nations has repeatedly rejected the terms ‘sexual identity’ and ‘sexual expression’ as a protected right partly because of confusion around its definition,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Overseas experience has also shown that special toilets for those with gender identity disorder amounted to discrimination. Schools will be in a no-win situation.”

    “Students with gender dissatisfaction must have the same rights as all New Zealanders, but should not be given special rights which place other school children at risk. Ignoring biology is not a proper solution.”


    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Topics: News Media/Press Releases | No Comments »

    Pro-Life: Please sign the Petition

    By admin | March 12, 2014

    Have you signed the petition yet?
    “We, the undersigned, oppose any attempt to introduce extreme abortion laws in NZ.
    Any changes would potentially pave the way for
    * late term abortions (abortion up to birth),
    * ‘gendercide’ (aborting children on the basis of their gender),
    * eugenics (aborting those with disabilities e.g. Down’s syndrome),
    * and possibly even partial-birth abortions.
    Along with protecting the rights of the unborn child, we need to protect the health and welfare of mothers (and fathers as well) and the rights of women to know the medical facts in order that they can make fully informed and independent decisions.”
    SIGN NOWhttp://www.chooselife.org.nz/sign-the-petition/

    Topics: Pro-Life | No Comments »

    $60k award after baby wrongly seized

    By admin | March 10, 2014



    A judge has awarded $60,000 to the parents of a baby girl wrongly seized by welfare authorities.

    The young couple, from Dunedin, have told the Sunday Star-Times of their harrowing two-year battle to regain custody of the girl, who was taken by Child, Youth and Family at just 14 weeks because the agency wrongly suspected she’d been abused.

    In fact, the baby’s multiple fractures were the result of rickets, caused by a lack of Vitamin D.

    The pair were forced to go to court to prove they hadn’t abused the baby.

    The couple, who cannot be named because of Family Court suppressions, took their daughter to a doctor in 2011 after she began “vomiting and twitching”.

    The doctor suspected a bowel obstruction and arranged for the baby to be admitted to hospital. An MRI in hospital revealed the baby had a fractured skull, ribs and limbs.

    The parents were interviewed by police and two days later, without notification, Child, Youth and Family applied for interim custody, which was granted.

    Three days later tests showed the baby had severe vitamin D deficiency and rickets – a Victorian era condition, which can lead to fractures and deformity of bones. The couple thought at that point their daughter would be returned to them.

    But when the case went to the Family Court, doctors were at odds over whether the infant’s injuries were caused by trauma or rickets. A Family Court judge ruled in favour of the CYF decision to remove the baby.

    Judge John Coyle said there was no evidence the “doting parents” were mistreating their daughter, but rejected rickets as a cause and said he could only conclude one of the parents caused her broken bones.

    The baby was sent to live with her paternal aunt. Her parents had to sell their house in Dunedin and move to the North Island so they could continue to see her on supervised visits. The couple was able to force an appeal of the original decision with new evidence from a case in Britain.

    Read the rest of the article here…

    Topics: Normal Families-Police/CYFs since Section 59 amended | No Comments »

    « Previous Entries