25 June 2007 – Family Integrity #269 — Christian School comment Dear Friends,

Here is an interesting comment from a Christian School principal on the Police guidelines in relation to the new Section 59.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…


21 Domain Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

PHONE 09-570-5873 FAX 09-570-5877 Mr Drake 021-66-9796 EMAIL mld@carey.school.nz

22 June 2007



Most of you are aware that the Bradford amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act comes into force today. It has been generally recognised that this makes parental use of force in the correction of children illegal. In exactly the same way the use of force by schools and teachers in the correction of children is now illegal.

From today, it appears that forcing a child to undergo correction at school will constitute an assault.

If the Police are consistent in following their guidelines published this week, every complaint about a punishment or correction at school will need to be investigated and, if not prosecuted, reported to a Family Violence Co-ordinator.

There is no provision in the Education Act that specifically empowers schools to correct children. Hitherto the legal basis for teachers in New Zealand schools correcting enrolled children has been that they are acting “in the place of parents”. The Bradford amendment to S59 specifically excludes those acting in the place of parents from using force to punish or correct a child.

A school that forces a child to write lines, pick up paper in the playground or be detained at an interval or after school, for the purpose of punishment or correction, is likely to be committing an assault.

Schools need to note that “force” is a term not restricted to physical force: it can involve placing a child under duress whereby he reasonably believes he will suffer if he does not comply.

The Police Guidelines specifically identify as an offence the detaining of a child in a situation where punishment or correction is intended (as opposed to transient detention to end an actual act of offensive, disruptive, illegal or dangerous behaviour).

State Schools, as opposed to Private Schools, are empowered by the Education Act to stand-down, suspend or exclude pupils. But that power cannot be exercised by way of punishment or correction: it can only be exercised on the basis that the student or other students will be harmed or that other students will be subject to a dangerous example.

Similarly State Schools are empowered by the Education Act to make bylaws, but only so far as they are in compliance with the “general law” of New Zealand. Such bylaws can no longer legitimise the use of force to correct or punish children.

Private Schools’ powers of correction have hitherto rested on the contractual arrangements with parents and the common law recognition that teachers are acting in the place of parents. The power to correct on the basis that teachers are acting in the place of parents is now specifically removed, and no contractual arrangement with parents could restore such a power.

We strongly advise schools to:

1. take legal advice
2. revise their discipline policies and practices
3. brief staff on safe management of children

We also recommend that as part of schools’ citizenship and anti-violence programmes guidance be given children on how to lodge complaints with the Police on behalf of themselves or others who might have been forcibly detained or punished in any school.

While we are not confident Police will be as willing to intervene in state schools as they are to intervene in families, children in schools are entitled to the same even-handed application of the law as children in the home.

In so far as biblical Christian faith and practice has been specifically targeted in the propaganda used to ram this amendment through Parliament in the face of unprecedentedly overwhelming opposition to it, we have every reason to fear that Christian families and schools will be targeted while state institutions will not be subject to the same policing. The fact that the Police Guidelines deal exclusively with corrective force in families and ignore the same offence in schools where it is a daily practice, appears indicative of already entrenched discrimination in Police attitudes and practice.

That a ban on smacking should effectively extend to all forms of punishment and correction should not come as a surprise. It is not just smacking that is opposed. All forms of correction and punishment are opposed in the foolish belief that there is no God, and that as a consequence there is no right and wrong. Along with that is the equally futile belief that if only we can make the “appropriate” laws, “inappropriate” behaviour can be ended and social harmony established.

But enforcing outward compliance does not change the heart, from which, Jesus said, comes wrong (Matthew 15:19). Laws cannot make people good, so laws cannot make societies good. Only God can change the heart. The Bradford amendment gives expression to the hope that man can replace God, and by law change human nature.

Law can, and should, punish wrong and reward right (Romans 13:4). While unable to change the hearts of wrongdoers, good law does establish an orderly and safe society. Ironically, the Bradford amendment that ostensibly opposes punishment will punish parents and teachers who really have the welfare of children at heart.

Michael L Drake

21 June 2007 – Family Integrity #268 — Police Guidelines

21 June 2007

New Zealand’s new “anti-smacking” law, due to come into effect tomorrow, Friday 22 June 2007, will make it a crime for parents to use any force whatsoever with their children, regardless of how reasonable or light, for the purpose of correction.

The following consists of:

1. A brief press release by the NZ Police.
2. A lengthy analysis of the new law change and practice guide for Police Officers written by Police Commissioner Howard Broad.
3. Section 6 of the Act which changed the law promising a review of the legislation after two years.
4. Another press release today showing further concern by Police.
5. Web address for petition forms to demand the NZ Government hold a referendum on the issue at the next elections (November 2008).

Craig Smith
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399

1. Police Practice Guide for new Section 59
3:43pm 19 June 2007
Police today released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act which comes into force this Friday 22 June 2007.

Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope, said the practice guide, in the form of a Commissioner’s circular, had been made available to all police staff on the organisation’s intranet to advise staff about the new section 59.

Mr Pope said the Commissioner’s circular took into account Parliament’s affirmation that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution.

“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. We have, therefore, set a three month review date on the Commissioner’s circular to enable it to be refined if necessary,” said Mr Pope.

2. Analysis and Guide

2007/03 – Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009

The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.

If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.

New Section 59
Section 59 states:

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of –
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Analysis of the New Section

“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
* age of the child
* maturity of the child
* ability of the child to reason
* characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
* the circumstances that led to the use of force.

Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.

Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.

Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s 59(1)(d)).

To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) – nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.

Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
* running across a busy road
* touching a hot stove
* inserting a metal object into a power point
* striking another child or person with an object.

Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).

Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.

In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:

[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:

1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; …
2. Hurtful, injurious …
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting …

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:

1. Causing or tending to disruption …

Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.

Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that Are incidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children. For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.

Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s 59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.

Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:

the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:

Of no consequence

And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:


The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.

In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.

Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)

The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.

Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:

Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member’s supervisor must be consulted.

Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.

It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family. Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
* establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
* where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
* depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.

In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must
be used by staff.

Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.

In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.

For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.

Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be more appropriate.

Howard Broad

3. Section 6 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007:
6. Chief executive to monitor effects of this Act

(1) The chief executive must, in accordance with this section, monitor, and advise the Minister on, the effects of this Act, including the extent to which this Act is achieving its purpose as set out in section 3 of this Act, and of any additional impacts.
(2) As soon as practicable after the expiry of the period of 2 years after the date of the commencement of this Act, the chief executive must—
a. review the available data and any trends indicated by that data about the matters referred to in subsection (1); and
b. report the chief executive’s findings to the Minister.
(3) As soon as practicable after receiving the report under subsection (2), the Minister must present a copy of that report to the House of Representatives.
(4) In this section, chief executive and Minister have the same meanings as in section 2(1) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

4. 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.

5. Download Petition Forms demanding a Referendum on this issue

20 June 2007

20 June 2007 – Family Integrity #267 — A poll on the law change


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

20 June 2007 – Family Integrity #266 — Apology and Clarification in relation to #265

Dear Friends,

This is in relation to the last Family Integrity Mailout #265 — Thinking of Going Off to Auzzie?

Please forgive me. I apologise. I have made an error of judgement in the way I introduced this subject. It sounds as if I am recommending that people leave NZ…that was not my intention.

It was unwise and unhelpful of me to send out that email with an introduction that made it sound as if I was promoting the idea of fleeing the country.

Please let me say it plainly: I am not promoting the idea of leaving NZ to go to Australia.

I had been asked by a number of folks about the possibility of moving to Australia and so decided to collect some information. Those who asked about the possibility of moving to Australia specifically asked about the smacking laws and the home education laws. Consequently I specifically addressed these things in that last email #265.

Lord willing, I will write something about how we can respond to this law which makes it a criminal offense to correct one’s own children if it involves the use of any level of force at all. Whatever commentary I may write will of necessity also deal with some of the implications of this new legislation…and yet the implications are also rather vague due to the complete lack of definitions of most of the key terms in the law and the lack of any case law as yet.

Please forgive me and please accept my apologies for stirring up unnecessary fear or warnings to flee the country. We each need to soberly assess the situation and work out what to do.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

19 June 2007 – Family Integrity #265 — Thinking of Going off to Auzzie?


OK, I know I’ll get a lot of flak for this, but here it is anyway:

Below is a lot of information to help folks get started on their investigations of the opportunity to shift to Australia to escape the galloping interventionist socialism we are curesed with here in NZ.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

Brief Comments from others:

I can’t tell you much about Melbourne, but we are looking at going to Queanbeyan which is on the NSW side of the ACT state line.
The NSW law was changed a couple of years ago but rather than throwing out their version of section 59, they defined what was UNreasonable.
This included 2 items – one that a child could not be physically chastised above the shoulders, and the other is that a smack cannot leave more than a transitory sting – no lasting injuries. Some people wanted to outlaw the use of implements, but this was thrown out.
Both NSW and ACT have homeschooling written right throughout their education acts also, making it an ingrained part of their laws, rather than just the one law we have, that could easily be struck out just like section 59.
As far as rents go, go to http://www.realestate.com.au they have rentals and sale properties. It is also worth checking out the likes of <http://mycareer.com.au> for jobs.
Hope this is of some help.
C….(in NZ)

We have just moved to Ballarat which is 1.25 hrs west of Melbourne. Ballarat has about 80,000 people. VIC has NO H/E rules so you just do what you want and don’t have to tell anybody.
There are a number of towns and cities in VIC. Bendigo is a nice city about 100,000 I think and property isn’t much dearer than Ballarat. Shepparton (2 hrs north of Melb) is nice too about 25,000 and similar market to Bendigo.
Melbourne is extremely expensive to buy a house, like $400,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house. Ballarat is about $160,000-$200,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house and rent is about $200 for the equivalent.
Cost of general living like food and fuel is about the same as NZ. Fuel is actually cheaper. Vans are ludicrously expensive and few and far between. Make sure you have $15,000-$25,000 for a reasonable van, not the $5,000-$10,000 like in NZ.
Sell all your belongings on Trademe and go garage saleing here. We did and got some good stuff and cost less than what we got for our stuff in NZ.
Hope this helps
M…(in Oz)

About 80% of homeschoolers in Queensland aren’t registered. Large families are also not as common, even amongst homeschoolers.
I hope this helps
B….(in Oz)

I have just been doing some research on homeschooling in Victoria, and it appears that the laws are set to become quite controlling in the middle of this year. After M……’s email regarding the ease of homeschooling laws there, I thought it would be pertinent that you know of the changes. These can be viewed at

Here are the things that worried me most:

8 Requirements of instruction in home schooling:
It is a requirement of registration of a child for home schooling that the child must receive regular and efficient instruction that-
(a) taken as a whole, substantially addresses the following learning areas-
(i) The Arts;
(ii) English;
(iii) Health and Physical Education (including Sport);
(iv) Languages other than English;
(v) Mathematics;
(vi) Science;
(vii) Studies of Society and Environment;
(viii) Technology; and
Note: These are the learning areas set out in Schedule 1 to the Act.
(b) is consistent with the principles underlying the Act, being the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to-
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance.
Some of these strike me as plain dumb, and others appear to be saying we must teach homo-friendly views to our kids.
C……(in NZ)

Websites About Immigration To Australia

Table Regarding Smacking Laws in Australia

I have spent hours trying to find out the smacking laws in the different Australian states, and have just found this link that gives a brief summary, followed by a table at the bottom of the page:


C….(in NZ)

Email Discussion Groups about Immigrating to Australia
http://kiwiaussie.freeforums.org (I think this one was set up specifically for those thinking of leaving since the Bill to ban parental authority was passed.)

Brief Review of Home Education Laws in Australia
“Many of us cannot see NZ as a viable place to rear a Christian family any more. Anyway, there are now a growing number of people asking about which part of Australia we can flee to.”

Hmm, I am not sure that is a wise way to be thinking. The changes to s59 alone would seem to me to be insufficient cause to “up stakes” and migrate to sunny Oz – “the land of the long weekend” and where Global Warming hysteria is such that we made Tim Flannery our Australian of the Year. Such major upheaval could be a case of ‘out of the frying pan and into the fire’.

We have our own difficulties here, too. Australia was a sponsor of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child back in the 1980s, and I was involved in some rearguard defence at the time – to no avail. It’s sad to have all your arguments vindicated by 20 years of creeping socialism.

Although for now our assault laws in the Crimes Acts of each jurisdiction still include a defence of reasonable force, there are irregular rumblings from the anti-smacking brigade here too. So it might only be a year or five years before the battle is joined here.

As you would be aware, this is all part of the attack on the family – God’s institution for revival.

See <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/12/motherhood-madness-why-mums-are-not-really-mums/> and especially the link to the original article in The Australian found at the end of Bill’s article.

People want to know about the home education laws in the various states.”

The shortest answer is that as of today:
a) all States except Victoria (where we are) regulate home education by requiring parents to obtain permission to educate their own children.
b) all States except Victoria require parents to complete forms, submit curriculum plans and be inspected regularly.
c) Within this framework, the diligence of inspection etc varies, so that in order of preference, it is “easiest” in a pragmatic sense to home educate in:

New South Wales
South Australia
Western Australia ?
Aust Capital Territory
Northern Territory
Western Australia ?

[In the spiritual sense, it’s almost all the same except for Victoria which is about to change. Our spiritual freedom has been compromised by an interfering governmental humanism.]

As from some date soon – probably July 1st, Victorians will have a new Education Act proclaimed and we will have to register to home educate our children.

The above rankings will remain as we will not be required to have regular inspections.

However, we must keep sufficient records to show that we are observing the 8 Key Learning Areas, and the motherhood statements in the Act (democracy, tolerance, rule of law – all the usual UNO guff).

Inspections will occur only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that we are not fulfilling the requirements/conditions of registration.

We fought hard last year against all this, but to no avail – and now this same Labour socialist government was voted back in (as opposed to the Liberal socialist Opposition who couldn’t ‘lay a glove on them’) and we are literally running out of water for the population!

It is timely that in our church we are studying the prophecy of Joel – it certainly speaks to Australia’s current situation.

Hope this gives you some data.

Christian Regards,
John & Marjo Angelico
Kingsley Educational Pty Ltd
P O Box 310
Mount Waverley
ABN 77 007 423 734
Phone +613 9544 8792
Fax +613 9544 2328

Websites of Australian Home Education Groups

16 June 2007 – Family Integrity #264 — War Against Children


Please listen to this 3 minute analysis of “The War Against Children” by the late Dr R. J. Rushdoony of Chalcedon Institute, Vallecito, California.


In Christ’s service,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

14 June 2007 – Family Integrity #263 — School Newsletter

Dear Friends,

The writer of the attached (below) school newsletter gave me permission to send it further afield — to you all. I reckon his analysis and recommendations of the situation (before the Bill to Criminalise Parental Authority was passed) is very insigtful and helpful.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

Tyndale Park Christian School
206 Murphys Road, Flat Bush, Manukau 2016. Phone 274 9771, Fax 274 9772

27 April 2007

Dear Parents, Staff, Pupils and Friends,

If we are not of this world, we will be hated by this world. If we believe what the Lord Jesus Christ says in John 15:19 “I have chosen you out of the world” then we should not only be aware but even experience that the world hates us!

“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19.

“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” 1 John 3:13.

Why are Christians – jailed in Eritrea, murdered in India, missing in Sri Lanka, facing trial in Uzbekistan, buried alive in Sudan, have their houses burned down in Pakistan, executed in Indonesia, beheaded in Sulawesi, tortured in Vietnam, martyred in Iran, stoned to death in Nigeria, imprisoned in Belarus, or starved to death in North Korea? Because:

1. They no longer have freedom and are persecuted for their faith in these countries and in many other countries.
2. They love their Saviour and are “not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ” (see Romans 1:16).
3. They are persuaded that they “ought to obey God rather than men” (see Acts 5:29).
4. They realise that the world hated their Lord before it hated them (see John 15:18).
5. They are not willing to compromise in their testimony.

We indeed have reason to be very thankful that we do not live under persecution in New Zealand such as that mentioned in the countries listed above. However, are you aware that since the 1980’s there has been a systematic effort, through social manipulation, in our own country, to destroy God’s first institution, the family and the home?

A dictionary from the 1980’s gives the following definition of a family: “people connected to one another by marriage and close blood relation and actually living together in one household, composed of a father, a mother (called parents) and a child or children.” You will not find such a definition in today’s dictionaries.

In Genesis 1:27&28 and in Matthew 19:4-6 we find God’s plan for marriage and the family is clearly stated. The destruction of the Biblical family started officially in 1994, the “International Year of the Family”. The NZ Government of the day released the following definition of the family: “a group of people which may include the very young and the elderly, who live in close association, which produces interdependence and a moral obligation to support one another.” The definition is not only anti-family, but unbiblical.

I believe it is a description of how people were living in the days before the flood (see Genesis 6:5-7) and in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:20&21 and 19:24&25) and in many “cultures” today.

Under the present government “much progress has been made” to further the destruction of the Biblical home/family. Allow me to quote from “The Politics of Family” by the Maxim Instute:

1. The Hon Steve Maharey stated that “the government’s decision to focus on families and parenting is not driven by concern in the decline in families with two married parents and children. Better support for parenting must and will apply equally to all family types.”
2. The Hon Phil Goff: stated at the United Nations in 2004 “that the NZ Government is pro-family having even set up the Commission for the Family.” Note that NZ has a Families Commission. I trust you recognise the difference.
3. The NZ government refused to sign the United Nations Doha Declaration, which specifically addresses the importance of government support for the family. The NZ Ambassador to the United Nations said the following about the Declaration “that it was being used to attack long-standing consensus agreement on diversity of the family structure in NZ.”
4. The present government committee charged with implementing the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) frequently labels motherhood as “an unfortunate stereotype”. This committee is aggressively pro-childcare etc.
5. In November 2003 the NZ Government led a group of 17 nations opposing a pro-parent draft resolution in the United Nations titled: “Importance of the role of parents in the care, development and well-being of their children.”
6. NZ now leads 31, mostly European, countries in the push for sexual orientation as a human right.
7. NZ has recently increased funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFA) which objects to strengthening the unique role of parents.

All of the above actions were taken by the present government!

These same Social Engineers presently want to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act which means that the use of any form of force on a child will constitute an assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.

Why do the majority of the Members of Parliament seem to support or go along with the repeal of the Bill by List MP Sue Bradford? Why are our “elected representatives” so concerned about Corporal Correction in a functional home consisting of a father, a mother and children without these children needing hospital treatment or burial? Why are Parliament, Government and its agencies (especially the Ministry of Social Development) either unwilling or unable, or both, to stem the serious abuse, murder and the shocking neglect of children in dysfunctional homes?

For answers to that we need to turn to the Scriptures! The attitude of the authorities in NZ presently is vividly described in Isaiah 47:10 and in other places.

1. “For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, “None seeth me.” Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; And thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.” Isaiah 47:10.
2. The humanist’s “heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9.
3. “The fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God”.” Psalm 14:1.
4. They “call evil good and good evil”; they “put darkness for light and light for darkness”; they “put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20.
5. They have “become vain in their imaginations … professing themselves to be wise … and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible … changed the truth of God into a lie and worship(ped) and serve(d) the creature more than the Creator.”
6. They have dethroned the God of Creation and enthroned themselves following Satan’s advice that “ye shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5) and consequently become dictators.
7. “… the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live …”. (Ecclesiastes (9:3)

What to do? Again the Scriptures give us answers.

1. That we “are of God … and have overcome them (spirit of anti-christ which is even now already in the world): because greater is He that is in you than he (Satan) that is in the world.” John 4:4.
2. That the Lord Jesus said “I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18.
3. That we may boldly say “The Lord is my helper and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.” Hebrews 13:7.
4. That we continue “building up yourselves on your most holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost, keep(ing) yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Jude 20&21.
5. That we “be ready always to give an answer to every man (including politicians) that asketh you a reason of the hope, that is in you with meekness and fear.” 1 Peter 3:15.
6. That we are to be “watchmen, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence.” Isaiah 62:6.
7. However, it must always be done with “sound speech (and writing) that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” Titus 2:8.

If we are given the legal opportunity to make submissions to Parliament and have the legal right to write to or ring members of Parliament, let us blow the trumpet.

In conclusion, seeing that the Lord Jesus Christ “has chosen us out of the world” (John 15:19), let us therefore “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) but “live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:12.

J H Brinkman
School Manager


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *