Year: 2009

  • The Evil Of The Anti-Smacking Law Proved

    Press Release: Thursday, 26 November 2009

    Reformation  Testimony

    Dr. Garnet Milne,

    www.covenantedreformation.com

    garnetmilne@xtra.co.nz

    The Evil Of The Anti-Smacking Law Proved

    An analysis of Peter Hughes’ review

    The new law took away protection of a parent for disciplining his child. Formerly he was permitted by section 59 of the Crimes Act to discipline a child by using ‘reasonable force’. A review was recently tabled in Parliament by Peter Hughes, the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development, which is full of misinformation and misrepresentations of the truth.

    The media have done a very poor job of reporting this review. The New Zealand Herald, New Zealand’s leading newspaper, is typical. It simply parrots the findings of the review and fails to do any analysis in the report itself. It asks no searching questions and offer no criticisms. However, the report does indeed raise questions and invite criticism.

    Let us consider the report in light of the Herald’s sympathetic regurgitation of Hughes’ conclusions

    The Herald reporter writes:

    In the report, Ministry of Social Development head Peter Hughes said he could find no evidence that parents were being subject to “unnecessary state intervention” for occasionally lightly smacking their children

    Notice that he can find no evidence. This is either a misrepresentation of the facts, or Hughes is blind to the evidence, for he gives the evidence himself in his report. He acknowledges that there have been 20 reports ‘of smacking passed to the police’ in the previous fifteen months. That represents 20 families who have had the indignity of the state’s agencies violate their home. Even one parent treated as a potential criminal because someone is aware he has smacked their children is bad enough. But here they admit 20 families have been so violated by unnecessary state intervention. The police went out and investigated these reports.

    The Herald also reports ‘A review of the “anti-smacking” law has found no increase in the number of parents being investigated or prosecuted for light smacking’. This statement is akin to saying ‘there has been no increase in the number of home invasions this year’. There might have been 10  or 20 of 50, but there has been no increase. That is reassuring isn’t it? The fact is that since the legislation there has been a manifold increase compared to previously. This is a devious statement if ever there was one. See below where the data Hughes is using shows that since the legislation has been enacted reports of ‘light smacking’ have doubled. This doesn’t even take into account the police admission that their figures are just ‘estimates.’ Nor does it tell us just what these 3 reports of smacking were about prior to the law change. They were probably serious assaults, and it would be very interesting here to see if the police had doctored the results. Furthermore, how were these three reports to the police handled in the three months prior to the legislation? Hughes should have told us whether the police investigated them, since as the law stood then it was no offence to smack your child.

    But notice that the Herald also reports the review to say that there has been a, significant rise in the reporting, apprehension, and prosecution of violent crime, including within families. But it says police and Child, Youth, and Family have not changed the way they respond to reports of light smacking or other minor acts of physical discipline.

    An important issue arises from this statement. This ‘significant rise in violent crime’, ‘including within families,’ hides the cunning of the social engineers who sponsored and brought to pass this anti-smacking law.  Anything that is not considered ‘light smacking’ becomes ‘violent crime’. Remember that this anti-smacking legislation outlaws using any implements like a wooden spoon. A little tap on the fingers with a wooden spoon is considered a ‘violent crime’. It is not so long ago, before corporal punishment was banned in schools, leather straps and canes were used to punish children who needed it. And the object was to teach them a lesson so that they would not repeat their bad behaviour. But now you are a criminal if you use a cane or a leather strap or a wooden spoon. How much of this ‘significant rise’ of ‘violent crime’, involves children getting smacked with an implement to teach them a lesson? Hughes does not tell us, because he does not know.

    People have gone to jail

    Just last week a woman was jailed for smacking her child with a garden hose. She hit him because he wagged school. He reported his parents to the police and now the family is in disarray and may not recover from this interference. The judge in the case demonstrated his own ignorance of social history when he made this comment as reported in the Herald: ‘Judge Wade said the statue of Justice above London’s Old Bailey court carried the inscription: “Defend the Children of the Poor and Punish the Wrongdoer”.’ The judge went on to moralise how he was doing the same thing in this case.

    Does he not realise that those who put that saying there no doubt had Psalm 82 in mind ‘Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy’ (Ps 82:3). The same Bible warrants corporal punishment. And when the saying was inscribed, corporal punishment was universally approved as a biblical and often necessary form of discipline?

    This case also highlights another evil from the advent of this legislation, which is what happened in that situation. Children can threaten to report their parents to the police. I have heard firsthand accounts of this very thing happening. The review does not even mention this aspect where children now hold sway over their parents, and the parents lose their authority in their own home and over their own children.

    100% increase in reporting parental smackers

    What about this statement from the Herald?

    A review of the “anti-smacking” law has found no increase in the number of parents being investigated or prosecuted for light smacking.

    The legislation has only been enacted for a year so how could there be an increase reported, especially when it comes to light smacking? The fact is that there used to be no investigations or prosecutions for light smacking. So when either occurs now, that is at least 100% increase. Let the police give us hard data that when someone was reported as lightly smacking their child prior to the law that parent was investigated at all.

    Another misrepresentation of the facts

    The review also says that:

    police and Child, Youth, and Family have not changed the way they respond to reports of light smacking or other minor acts of physical discipline.

    This too is a misrepresentation. The impression given is that government agency CYFS and the police used to respond to reports of light smacking or other ‘minor acts’ of physical discipline. The truth is that neither the police nor CYFS used to respond at all because parents once had the legal right to discipline their children. Now they investigate these reports because a new law requires them to do so.

    Notice too that since child discipline has become assault the statistics have been skewed, for now the term ‘child assault’ incorporates any form of physical discipline. Anything the police consider not minor becomes assault on a child. The facts are that there was one prosecution by the police for smacking and 14 cases of minor discipline and 356 cases of ‘child assault’. A substantial part of the latter are cases where children have been disciplined. What Hughes should have investigated was how many of these 356 cases would have been acquittals under the former section 59 of the Crimes Act which protected parents. He does not even mention this obvious comparison.

    A Further misrepresentation – ‘inconsequential smacks’

    The Herald writes Hughes said in his report:

    he was satisfied that none of the prosecutions involved “inconsequential” smacks, with the victim being punched, slapped, or hit multiple times on various parts of the body in most cases.

    Notice here that Mr Hughes becomes the authority on what constitutes an ‘inconsequential smack’. And he plainly distinguishes several hits with a strap or a slap with the hand from and ‘inconsequential smack’. This is proof positive that this report is a farce – a joke, but which is playing with the lives of decent New Zealanders and New Zealand families. Why does ‘hit multiple times’ become different than multiple inconsequential smacks?

    And just a note about ‘inconsequential smacks’!. While he was in opposition, John Key devised this phrase with his party being whipped to vote en block, for this Labour/Green legislation to criminalise parents. He assured everyone that an inconsequential smack would not invoke the law. But notice what this means. It means that you cannot smack your child once or several times to change their behaviour. This is specifically excluded from the legislation. A parent should expect consequences from discipline, or it is unnecessary. To put it another way, an ‘inconsequential’ smack is cruel and evil because the parent is smacking the child without any reason or intended consequence.

    What about this misleading statement?

    The data does not suggest parents are being subject to more attention from the New Zealand police in terms of responses to light smacking.

    Again this is misinformation of the worst sort. The implication here is that once the New Zealand police used to give some attention to ‘light smacking’. The facts are that the police never bothered themselves by interfering with a parent’s right to smack their child. So this statement is meaningless. Obviously the police are paying a lot more attention responding to light smacking as the statistics demonstrate, the statistics Hughes uses in his report. In the past 15 months the police had investigated 20 reports of smacking. Hughes can give no annual stats prior to that because there weren’t any. So the correct statement should be, police involvement in parental discipline when parents use a light smack has skyrocketed from nil to 20, and this does not take into account verbal warnings given by police and not reported. The bill became law in June 2007. The term ‘light smacking’ or the use of ‘inconsequential’ was not part of the legal vocabulary for the police to respond to. To introduce figures concerning ‘light smacking’ before the institution of the law is to misuse statistics in the worst possible manner.

    A confession that he does not have all the data to support his whitewash of bad law

    The report also confesses that:

    The available data does not allow me[Hughes]to conclusively discount the possibility that there may have been isolated cases where practice was different.

    In other words Hughes is admitting that children may have been ‘subject to unnecessary state intervention for occasional lightly smacking their children’.  We have already exposed this as false since there were 20 reports of precisely this thing happening. And parents have been prosecuted for smacking and I am aware of one case in Nelson where the accused was put through the ringer only to have the case dismissed in court. Just think of the trauma this must have on a loving parent who is trying to bring his children up correctly.

    Hughes says that data from the police does not ‘provide evidence of unwarranted investigation or prosecution for the light smacking of children’. This too is a plain misrepresentation since police have taken prosecutions which have been dismissed. This must mean that their intervention and prosecution was unwarranted. Also notice that Hughes never went to one parent who had been investigated or prosecuted and asked his view of the situation. He is just blindly parroting what he has been told by the police who are hardly going to put themselves in a bad light.

    Flawed data

    Hughes also admits in his review that the government agencies do not distinguish different types of violence on children when they are reported. This is an admission that Hughes is using data which is next to useless to decide whether an intervention was warranted or not: ‘Concerns are not coded or classified by the type of abuse at the point of notification to CYFS’

    He also admits that other government agencies might have gotten involved and he does nothing to try and evaluate what happened in such cases:

    Cases which were not referred to a front line social worker may still have been the subject of further action. This includes the provision of advice or the referral of the family to another agency in order that assistance could be provided.

    Yet Hughes makes sweeping statements about how there was no undue interference of families as a result of this new law. Why does Hughes not admit that not only have other agencies interfered with families, but that primary school children are out of control, and that the high crime rate among teens and younger is evidence of a wide spread lack of discipline in the home and in society.

    110,000 notifications in a population of 4 million

    If you see me smacking my child and you report me to the police or CYPS I become part of the statistics of ‘substantiated cases’ of family violence. In 2008/2009 there were over 110,000 notifications and 2855 ‘substantiated cases’. Later he admits,

    Advice, or assistance from other agencies, will have been provided to many of the families who were the subject of notifications that did not proceed to an investigation.

    In sifting through these no doubt many a family had strangers from government departments intruding into their families and lives. Hughes admits that the rate of increase of notifications had ‘risen markedly since 2007’.  In fact they had risen from 89000 to 110000. This huge jump occurs after the anti-smacking law came into force.

    Police guessing becomes basis of Hughes’ conclusions

    Remember that Hughes admits that the police are only guessing how many smacking cases were reported to them: ‘They (the police) have analysed offender data to estimate which type of events are most likely to include a section 59 type issue’. Notice they are only estimating or guessing and do not have the information in their records to give any accurate data.

    In his Table 2, Hughes reports that the police claim that violence against children by parents, in the three months prior to the anti-smacking law coming into force, involved a total of 95 cases. In the five periods after it became law they jumped from 95 to 111, 288,258,279 and 127 respectively. These are dramatic increases. He does not give us data for the whole year prior to the anti-smacking law because no doubt it would highlight even more the dramatic jump in police involvement. The police even claim that they received 3 reports of smacking in the three months prior to the law taking effect, but averaged out for the next 5 periods  7.2 per period –  well over a 100% increase. Just think how the 36 families and parents who were investigated by the police felt about it. Surely Hughes is talking nonsense when he claims that there was no undue interference. He says that there is no discernable trend, while I have shown that there is an obvious doubling of reports, if these police ‘estimates’ are accurate. Hughes appears to have deliberately ignored these facts. Did they not fit his preconceived views that the anti-smacking bill was good law? That is a possible explanation.

    The police claim that only 1 parent was prosecuted for smacking. Even one is one too many. But notice that other minor acts of physical discipline amounted to 14. All of these were unwarranted prosecutions if the discipline was only minor. The parents were merely following the biblical injunction to spare rod and spoil the child (See Proverbs 13:24, 22:15).

    The level of New Zealand family violations would become 1400 families in the US

    14 prosecutions for smacking in New Zealand would transform into 1400 prosecutions in a place like the United States. And this takes no account of the ‘warnings’, mandatory counselling or other state interventions into families.

    Moreover, reporting on what police call serious assaults has jumped from an average of around 850 in the previous two years to an average of 1326 in 2007 and 2008. This again is a massive increase in reporting. And remember a serious assault is classed as hitting someone with a rod or strap. No doubt there were some examples of extreme and unwarranted violence against children, but it is equally true that the statistics hide corporal punishment of children given in an appropriate and wise manner by loving parents.

    Shipping containers becoming prisons

    There is no doubt that New Zealand is a violent society. Our prisons are full and we are building new ones out of shipping containers to house new criminals. Added to this the courts are weak and controlled by liberal judges who hand out pathetic sentences, meaning that criminals are released back into the community far more quickly than is the case in many other countries similar to New Zealand.

    This increase in violence has occurred since schools were prohibited from using corporal punishment, and there is evidence that atrocious behaviour at school, in the home, vandalism against property and crime generally increases every year. The government of the day, aided and abetted by the opposition (National) and who have since become the government, has introduced a law which criminalises parents, has the police investigate if a child is seen being smacked in a supermarket or at home, and has enabled rebellious children to threaten their parents with police involvement if they are given, or even threatened with, corporal punishment. We can no longer legally smack our children with hand or implement to correct or to cause a consequence of improved behaviour.

    86% in a referendum

    A recent referendum on this subject showed that an overwhelming 86% of voters wanted this legislation repealed and parents no longer criminalised. John Key and the National government have ignored the desire of the people. This demonstrates that New Zealanders are willing to vote into government politicians who are not family-friendly, have no regard for biblical morality and who are quite happy to have government agencies interfering in the lives of  decent New Zealanders who are bringing up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. And they try and claim that they are a conservative and ‘right wing’ party. All they are conserving is the social engineering of the former government they tried to deride as a nanny-state. Surely John Key is just Helen Clark in drag.

    We must obey God rather than man

    I know that many parents continue to smack their children and continue to use a physical rod or implement to teach the lesson which needs to be learnt. And genuine Christians will not capitulate to the social engineering this kind of evil legislation represents. As Christians we obey the Word of God before any government or official. When the authorities ordered the apostles not to preach the whole counsel of God, they responded ‘We ought to obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29). To force a Christian to not bring up his child in the way he should go (Proverbs 22:6) is an act of tyranny. This government is, therefore, tyrannical.

    Many government agents including the police, who are called upon to enforce this law, believe the law to be wrong. And no doubt many police hit their own children if needed. I call upon all these men and woman to stand up and say that you will not criminalise or investigate cases of parental discipline which were deemed acceptable prior to June 2007. If you had the courage to do this, the government would be forced to change its mind and repeal this godless legislation. The police union would be doing all New Zealanders a great favour if they took the lead in this. Any human being who fails to do good in defiance of a tyrannical government, when he has the opportunity to do so, becomes just as culpable as that government. And God will hold him accountable. It is a biblical principle that the moral Law, the Ten Commandments’, lays an obligation on all, not only to not do what God prohibits, but also to positively perform its opposite. When we are told not to kill (Exodus 20:13), we are to do everything in our power for the well-being of our neighbour just as surely as we are prohibited from thrusting a knife into his heart. We are to do this in the context of our respective callings.

    We also know that there are many in the National Party caucus, who disagree with the anti-smacking law and yet they voted for it in parliament. This is unforgivably hypocritical, and MPs should have the courage to come out and acknowledge that they think the law is wrong, confess their cowardliness – and then should do something about it. That this hypocritical voting practice could occur demonstrates none to subtly that our system of government is flawed and corrupt. We can only pray that God will raise up truly godly political leaders who will honour Him in all their duties. New Zealand will reap the whirlwind of this post-‘enlightenment’ liberalism and we will become even more unsafe as a society than we already are. The failure to adequately discipline children at school and at home will make this a certainty. Man remains a fallen creature as all the evidence proves.

    Dr. Garnet Milne.

    The full review by Peter Hughes can be found here.

    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/release+section+59+review

    or

    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/20091110%20CE%20Monitoring%20Report%20on%20s59.pdf

  • Spot the difference!

    From Family First NZ e-newsletter

    Spot the difference!


    6,000 bikers turned up at parliament and the government promised to act. 6,000 family members turned up in Queen St and only one politician turned up. What’s the difference? The only difference is the response!
    Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz

    please respond to: feedback@familyfirst.org.nz

  • 6,000 join ‘March for Democracy’

    From Family First NZ e-newsletter

    6,000 join

    ‘March for Democracy’



    Protesters March on City NZ Herald Nov 21, 2009 READ MORE Herald on Sunday 22 Nov 09 READ MORE

    MEDIA COVERAGE:
    TV3 News WATCH HERE
    TV3 News Full Interviews with Bob McCoskrie, Colin Craig and Garth McVicar WATCH HERE
    TVOne News WATCH HERE
    NZ Herald WATCH HERE
    Newstalk ZB Bob McCoskrie talks to Larry Williams before the March LISTEN HERE


    Marchers want to meet PM

    NZPA 22/11/2009
    The organisers of this weekend’s “March for Democracy” say the Government’s response will determine how far and wide they take the campaign. READ MORE
    Anti-smacking march may move to other cities
    NZ Herald 23 Nov 09 READ MORE
    Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz


    STOP PRESS: PM Agrees To Meet With March Organisers http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0911/S00252.htm

  • New Deputy Commissioner Will Speak For Families

    MEDIA RELEASE

    25 November 2009

    New Deputy Commissioner Will Speak For Families

    Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of Parents Inc’s Bruce Pilbrow as Deputy Families Commissioner.

    “Bruce Pilbrow will bring some much needed balance at the Commission and rather than talking at parents, it will hopefully start listening to the voice of families and advocating for them in a relevant way,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Unfortunately it isolated itself by ignoring some of its own research and the voice of the overwhelming majority of parents when it supported ramming through the anti-smacking law without representing the concerns and views of parents.”

    “Pilbrow’s politically incorrect views on the smacking law – ironically shared by almost 90% of the country – shows that he’s willing to move past the rhetoric and ideology, and objectively examine the facts and experiences of families.”

    “The appointment suggests that the government is willing to have a diversity of opinion in the Commission. This can only strengthen the important debates to be had around family issues,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Issues such as the benefits of marriage, the harm of long term daycare for very young children, an independent CYF Complaints authority,  the sexualisation of children in marketing, drug and alcohol abuse in our communities, and broadcasting and advertising standards are all big issues for families which the Commission needs to tackle head-on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First would still like to see the appointment of a Minister of Families at the Cabinet table.

    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/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Wellington Protest Against FPA Abortion License

    Press Release: Wellington Protest Against FPA Abortion License

    Pro-life Kiwis will on Friday march in solidarity with the unborn, protesting the abortion bid by the Family Planning Clinic.

    The protest coincides with the 30 November end date for the petition put forward by Sue Roe. The petition calls for the Abortion Supervisory Committee to deny the Family Planning Association’s request to be permitted to commit abortions against mothers and their pre-born children up to 9 weeks at their Hamilton clinic.

    The Family Planning Association has previously announced its intention to convert all of its centres into providers of chemical abortions. If the Hamilton clinic is granted a license it will be a matter of time before New Zealand receives the dubious honour of having 30 new abortion clinics throughout the country.

    Women and girls of any age will be able to come into the clinic without an appointment, receive counselling and then go ahead with an abortion in the same visit.

    “This is terrible as mothers will be compelled to make an abortion decision within a very short time-frame,” says march co-organiser Andy Moore. “This will lead to women being encouraged to have an abortion, taking the pill and then regretting their decision shortly afterwards.”

    “They want to be allowed to kill children with the chemical abortion method,” he says. “The first pill starves the baby of essential nutrients followed by the second pill about 48 hours later which artificially stimulates an extremely premature birth. It’s an unthinkably awful way for anyone to die. Not only this, but often the baby is pushed out when the mother is at home, occasionally alive and then dying very shortly afterwards. RU486 abortions not only destroy innocent human life but are often a traumatic experience for the mother.”

    Marchers will gather in front of Parliament at 4:30pm on Friday 27 November, marching to the Margaret Sparrow Family Planning Clinic at 35 Victoria Street. All are welcome to this peaceful march.

    ENDS

  • Hundreds march over government inaction

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3085149/Hundreds-march-over-government-inaction

    Hundreds march over government inaction

    By DAVID GADD – Stuff.co.nz

    Hundreds of Aucklanders marched up Queen Street today to protest at repeated government inaction on citizens-initiated referendums.

    Organiser Colin Craig said the March for Democracy was being held to protest Government failure to respond to three citizens-initiated referendums: reducing the number of MPs; a more victim-centred justice system and amending the anti-smacking legislation.

    On the march was the Thomsen family from Te Atatu Peninsula.

    “I think it is important that the government knows that we have a voice,” said dad Ken, who marched with wife Serena, mother Orpa and children Daniel, 13, Asher, 11, Samantha, 8, and Sean, 5.

    “The people that voted them in do need to be listened to,” Mr Thomsen said.

    The protest was principally sparked by the anti-smacking law – almost 90 percent of people who voted in a referendum asking New Zealanders whether smacking should be illegal voted no.

    The referendum cost $9 million and asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    The Chief Electoral Office said there was a 54 percent voter turnout. A total of 1,622,150 votes were cast with 87.4 percent in favour of repealing the controversial new law.

    “We would like the government to take our voting and voice into much more serious account. We would like the government to return to their roots of representative government,” march organisers said.

    “The recent ignoring of the recent Citizens’ Initiated Referendum, where 87.4 percent voters asked for change, is just one example of the trend away from listening to the people of New Zealand.”

    “We the citizens of New Zealand demand that the government employ the principle of democracy; enacting laws in accordance with the wishes of the majority.’

    Therefore, the march was demanding the smacking law be changed so that a light smack was not a criminal offence, said Mr Craig.

    However, a review of the “anti-smacking” law has found no increase in the number of parents being investigated or prosecuted for light smacking.

    The review was required by law two years after the change to Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which removed the defence of reasonable force for parents or guardians who hit their children.

    In the report, Ministry of Social Development head Peter Hughes said he could find no evidence that parents were being subject to “unnecessary state intervention” for occasionally lightly smacking their children.

    The number of police prosecutions for smacking remains at one, while there have been 14 cases of minor physical discipline resulting in prosecution.

    Hughes said in his report he was satisfied that none of the prosecutions involved “inconsequential” smacks, with the victim being punched, slapped, or hit multiple times on various parts of the body in most cases.

    Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said she thought the review went some way to comforting parents that the law was being interpreted in the way it was intended.

    “However, in light of the Citizens Initiated Referendum on this issue, a further report is still being undertaken by Police Commissioner Howard Broad, Mr Hughes and (child psychologist) Nigel Latta,” Bennett said.

    It is due with the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Police and Social Development and Employment before the end of the year.

    That report will review policies and procedures to identify any changes that may be necessary to ensure that good parents are treated as Parliament intended and the provisions of the law are applied to those who abuse children.

    Also on the march today were the proposer of the 99 MP’s referendum Margaret Robertson and Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, representing the Norm Withers Law and Order Referendum.

    Also marching was singer Yulia, who became a New Zealand citizen in 2005.

    “As a young girl I grew up with the concrete dust of totalitarian based poverty and the ruin of a war torn post-communist Volgograd as my playground,” she said.

    “Let us not take these freedoms for granted. Let us not forget the horrific price of totalitarianism. By marching for democracy we demonstrate that despite being from many cultures and backgrounds, we can get together and be one people under New Zealand democracy.”

    Some of the more unusual placards included ‘Bring Back Dancing with the Stars’ and one calling for a referendum on former TrueBliss singer Carly Binding.

    The march also had a group waving Maori sovereignty flags.

    And as it moved up Queen St, the march passed a protest group from the Unite Union trying to organise a petition to raise the minimum wage.

    Children’s Commissioner Dr John Angus said this week that the march was not in the best interests of children and parents would be better to spend more time with their children.

    He said the march was also poorly named.

    It was not about democracy but about re-instating a law that allowed parents to assault their children and claim a defence of reasonable force.

    “I don’t believe that finding ways to define when and how children might be hit, at what age and what with, for purposes of correction is in any way connected to the best interests of children.”

    But march organiser Colin Craig said parents knew better than Dr Angus what was best for their children.

    “What worries me is that this tax-paid bureaucrat is trying to dictate once again to good parents what is best for their children.”