8 – 30 June 2007

Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack

Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.

Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.

“We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.”

“It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances.”

“However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated.“

“The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF’s for possible investigation and intervention.”

“That’s how farcical this law is,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children’s Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe’s actions totally unacceptable.”

But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
By RHONDA MARKBY – The Timaru Herald | Tuesday, 26 June 2007

The new law banning the smacking of children might be three days old, but Timaru police are yet to use it.

Senior Sergeant Mark Offen was not surprised that there had been no complaints, adding allegations of assault on children by either adults or children themselves, were not common.

In the less serious cases officers could use their discretion as to whether a charge was laid. Mr Offen said there still had to be sufficient evidence for police to lay a charge and take the matter to court.

Maxim Institute – real issues – No. 258
Friday, 22 June 2007, 10:50 am
Column: Maxim Institute
21 June 2007
http://www.maxim.org.nz

A LEAP IN THE DARK

This week the Police released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 detailing how they intend to decide whether parents will or will not be prosecuted when they use physical discipline. The changes to the law around disciplining children will come into effect on 22 June 2007, making it technically illegal to use mild physical force for the purposes of correction. However, if the offence is ‘inconsequential’ the police have discretion whether to prosecute.

The guidelines suggest that even though infrequent smacking may be considered inconsequential, prosecution may still occur after repetitive incidents. Similarly, even ‘inconsequential’ reports of force must be passed on to the Police family violence co-ordinator under the guidelines. The police have also been careful to point out that the true impact of this law will not be seen until case law develops. This means that until someone is prosecuted under the new section 59, the way the guidelines will be applied cannot be predicated. The changes to section 59 are, as many opponents warned, a leap in the dark.

The release of these guidelines coincides with the findings of a national poll on people’s attitudes towards the new law, conducted by Curia research, a market research firm. The results show that 78 percent of parents surveyed will still smack their children to correct their behaviour if they believe it is reasonable to do so. Only 16 percent said that they would not. This suggests that people are going to be willing to break the law and whether they will be punished for doing so will depend on how the police view their actions.

This raises an interesting question; will the vast majority of New Zealanders actually ignore this new legislation long-term or will the law eventually change New Zealanders’ perspective on parental discipline? Sweden is an interesting test case because physical punishment against children was banned in 1979, yet parents continued to physically discipline their children. While 34 percent of those born before 1979 indicated they had received physical punishment from their parents, this only dropped to 32 percent for those born during or after 1979. The results of the poll by Curia research tentatively suggest that a similar pattern may emerge in New Zealand, which is the inevitable result of a law that relies on police guidelines and court precedents.

Smacking doesn’t make me a bad mum – Rotorua parent

22.06.2007
By KRISTIN MACFARLANE

SINGLE mum Augusta Scott has her hands full with two young boys, Elijah, 10 and Chance, 8.

Most of the time they’re good kids.

But sometimes if they’re naughty, she’ll give them a light smack.

Ms Scott says that doesn’t make her a bad mother.

However, she’s worried that from today parents like her could come under unfair scrutiny.

Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill – the anti-smacking bill – comes into effect today after being passed into law last month.

Ms Scott said as a single mum it could be difficult controlling two young boys who sometimes fought.

In these circumstances, a light smack was necessary, she said.

“You can’t say naughty boy and send them to time out because it doesn’t work,” she said.

“If it’s controlled it can provide the effective reinforcement when you’re trying to teach a child something.

“It’s all the parents [who] discipline with control [who] are going to be under the spotlight.”

Ms Scott has a teenage daughter who was smacked when she misbehaved.

It had not had a negative affect on her, Ms Scott said.

Ms Scott said the bill also had the potential for children to make false complaints because it has been such a high-profile issue.

“Guaranteed, it will happen.”

John Wilson of the Rotorua police child abuse section agreed.

“There’s always been the potential for false complaints,” Mr Wilson said. However, he did think the bill was good in the sense that it changed the Crimes Act and removed the defence of “reasonable force” against assault on a child.

“It’s certainly a step in the right direction,” he said.

He didn’t think responsible parents needed to worry about getting into trouble.

“The whole thing has to be viewed with a good amount of common sense,” he said.

Anti-smacking guide for police
Jun 21, 2007

With the new anti-smacking law coming into effect on Friday, police have released guidelines on how staff should handle it.

The guide outlines situations where it is okay to smack. But parents opposed to the bill say the guidelines confirm it is their worst nightmare.

The police guidelines acknowledge children are unpredictable. A smack is okay to stop a child running onto a road, experimenting with electrical outlets or behaving in a criminal or offensive way that may harm themselves or others.

Police can also look the other way if the smack is deemed inconsequential or so light it doesn’t matter.

But if it comes to police attention, it will be recorded.

“It’s a record of police action and potentially if there is a sequence of incidents relating to a particular family or person then police clearly would be failing in their duty not to look at the matter appropriately,” says Pope.

In the guide, police state that where force is used against a child, they must consider the amount of force used before deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

If an assault is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, the event will be recorded and the file forwarded to a family violence co-ordinator.

But the guide states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”

Simon Barnett says he is a good father to his four children and smacking is all part of that.

“Then you say ‘look if you do that again daddy’s going to give you a smack on the count of three. One, two’ and if they do it again I will smack her wee hand,” Barnett says.

He believes police guidelines on the new anti-smacking law confirm his worst fears that parents like him will be criminalised.

“Even if it’s inconsequential smacking, your name goes on a police computer forever as a violent offender. That is unconscionable,” he says.

Police say that is just business as usual.

Police use a number of sources for registering complaints, offences or incidents they attend as part of our overall statistical gathering,” says Rob Pope, police deputy commissioner.

Like any new law, this one will have to be tested through the courts to see what the judiciary decides is inconsequential smacking or not. The police statement says that until cases go through the courts it is not clear how the law will be applied.

“Well I’m sorry, I don’t want to have to be the test case – some poor child getting dragged through the court system and some family suffering that fate,” says Barnett.

Police will review the guidelines in three months.

Law “confusing”

Bob McCoskrie from lobby group Family First says the guidelines show the law is confusing.

“If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says McCoskrie.

But bill author Sue Bradford says the guidelines really support the idea behind the bill. She says it is clear that using weapons, or hitting kids around their head is inappropriate and also gives good rules around what is.

CYF won’t change approach

And it will be business as usual for Child Youth and Family when the anti-smacking legislation comes into effect on Friday.

CYF says it will look at each notification involving physical discipline in the same way as any other allegation of assault.

Spokeswoman Lee Harris Royal says a smack on the back of the hand to signal displeasure will not reach an intervention stage.

In repeated events where police warnings have been unsuccessful involving the same family, only then will CYFS intervene.

But whether the use of physical force against a child constitutes an offence, will still be a police decision.

Smacking guidelines too restrictive – police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007

New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.

The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.

A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.

But association president Greg O’Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.

“The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given,” he told the New Zealand Herald.

There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.

There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.

Mr O’Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. “And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad.”

A group opposing the smacking bill – Family First – yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.

Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.

“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” Mr McCoskrie said.

The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.

National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.

A Hamilton father of five who plans to continue smacking his children in spite of a controversial law banning physical punishment says the police prosecution guidelines are too vague.

Neil Pascoe, whose children range in age from two to 23, said it was “totally ridiculous” that parents who regularly smacked their children despite warnings faced prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under the law, which comes into effect on Friday.

“How can they prove it?” he said. “They’re not there at the time – they didn’t see what went on . . . unless there is bruising – but if there is, or scarring, that then becomes abuse.”

Under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday, even parents found to have used “minor, trivial or inconsequential” force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence co-ordinators.

The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of a law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children.

It was passed after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute “inconsequential” smacking.

Though that is recognised in the guidelines, “inconsequential” is not defined, with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.

The advice goes on to say that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is “repetitive and frequent” and previous warnings have been ignored. Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYF.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents.

Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police “some context”.

National will fix smacking law if it’s broken

Wednesday, 20 June 2007, 10:05 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
John Key MP
National Party Leader
20 June 2007

National will fix smacking law if it’s broken

National Party Leader John Key says a National-led Government will change the smacking law if the spirit of the compromise thrashed out with Labour is broken.

“We’re watching the developments. National has maintained right the way through the process that we do not wish to see responsible parents criminalised. If that starts happening, a National Government would fix the law.

“The critical test of this legislation was always going to be the way it was administered.

“But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required. If, for whatever reason, that proves not to be the case, we’ll change it.

“The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for an ‘inconsequential’ smack. That’s what National signed up to, and that’s still the case.”

ENDS

The Dominion Post 20 June 2007

Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment. Even parents found to have used “minor, trivial or inconsequential” force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday. The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of the law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children. The law comes into force on Friday.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents. “Who’s going to be the lucky test case parents who have to go through the hell of a prosecution? If the police are saying ‘we’re not sure’, how in the heck are parents going to be certain that they’re parenting within the law?”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4100946a10.html

Police issue smacking law guide and question definitions
NZ Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10446785

READ The Police Practive Guide for New Section 59
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html

Family First’s Response…

Police Practice Guide for Smacking Law Confirms Worst Fears for Parents
Family First MEDIA RELEASE
19 JUNE 2007

The Police have confirmed that they will prosecute parents who lightly smack their children, even if the smacking is inconsequential.

In the Police Practice Guide released by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope today, it states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”

“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This flies in the face of assurances given by Helen Clark and John Key.”

The Police Practice guide also acknowledges the confusing nature of the new law in its introduction by stating that “until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law.”

“If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The Practice Guide also confirms that the Police will be keeping records of all complaints – even those of a minor, trivial or inconsequential nature.”

“It is interesting to note that the Police, in the absence of clear definitions in the law of who is a “child” and what constitutes “reasonable force” will be forced to make subjective decisions based on the age and maturity of the child and the circumstances that led to the use of force. In other words, and ironically, we’re back to the original section 59.”

“The politicians have delivered a ‘feel-good’ law change to the Police with no substance or certainty for parents, and some poor family is going to be the ‘test case’ of a law which, according to a recent poll, 78% of NZ’ers will ignore and 77% say it will have no effect on child abuse.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00214.htm

Smacking Law Rejected by Majority of NZ’ers – 78% Will Ignore the Law

Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.

These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.

29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.

“This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

82% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law.

When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know.

78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.

“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”

When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely.

“This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”

“The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.”

As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.

“Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.

The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

Read Full Report – http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Smacking%20Poll%20June%202007%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM

June 8, 2007 – 11:19AM

Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn’t want the practice outlawed.

Mr Howard said he did not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.

After an anti-smacking law was passed in New Zealand last month, the Australian Democrats called for the federal government to protect children from physical punishment.

A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.

Asked if he smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: “No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.

“We were not into, sort of, physical discipline,” he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

“That’s us. I’m not telling other parents how to run their lives.”

The prime minister said disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.

“I do not believe the law should be changed.

“There are laws at the moment which punish people who abuse children.