Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • The opponents of the anti-smacking law outnumber the supporters of ANY New Zealand government

    I (Beretta Blog) spotted this over at Kiwiblog today:

    1. 1,420,959 – Voted no to treating correctional smacking as a criminal offence
    2. 1,053,398 – 2008 Voted for National when they won the election
    3. 935,319 – 2005 Voted for Labour when they won the election
    4. 838,219 – 2002 Voted for Labour
    5. 800,199 – 1999 Voted for Labour
    6. 701,315 – 1996 Voted for National

    This certainly puts the lie to the claim that the referendum is irrlevant or that it was ignored because of an alleged bias in its presentation. The reality is, just those who voted NO outnumber the supporters of any political party that has won an election in this country. Then add the 200,000 or so who voted in the minority, and you’ve got one heck of a popular and representative referendum!

    Let’s now sit, watch, and see what our Prime Minister is made of.

  • Putting the referendum result in context

    via TBR.cc by iwishart on 8/21/09

    It has been said that the overall turnout (54%) in the smacking referendum provides no mandate.

    If this were true, no city or regional council has a mandate to govern today and all should resign pending a fresh election, as those results are decided on turnouts of fewer than 50%.

    But more significantly, here’s something else to keep in mind.

    More than 1.4 million people voted ‘No’ on the referendum.

    In the 1999 election that swept Labour’s Helen Clark to power, 800,199 people voted Labour.

    In the same 1999 election, 629,932 voted National.

    In other words, the no vote in the referendum is almost double (75% higher in fact), than the number of voters who gave Helen Clark a mandate to run New Zealand for three years.

    It is more than double (130% higher in fact), than the number of people who voted National in 1999.

    In fact, it may even be that on the final tally, the ‘No’ vote actually exceeds the combined votes of both National and Labour at the 1999 election.

    Green Party MP and pro-smacking law campaigner Sue Bradford has tried to argue that if you take into account those who didn’t vote (46%), and add them to the 11% who voted in favour of her own position, that’s a majority of the population who support her and therefore the referendum gives “no mandate” for change.

    Taking that logic at face value, if we look at the 1999 election, the number of people who did not vote Labour or did not turn out to vote, clearly outweighs Labour’s 800,000 votes.

    Bradford is on a loser if she keeps riding down that path.

    Ironically, more people voted No in last night’s referendum than voted in favour of introducing MMP to our electoral system. Does that mean we should declare MMP null and void using Bradford’s logic?

    Perhaps, if we did, the Greens would disappear in a puff of (dope) smoke.

  • They did not drown out the voice of the people! So what now?

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Kiwi Party Leader and referendum petition organiser Larry Baldock was thrilled by the provisional results released tonight by Chief Electoral Office.
    “My wife and I spent 18 months travelling through this country three times listening to people from all walks of life as they signed the petition on street corners, beaches, shows and sports events. What we heard then is confirmed in the result tonight,” said Mr Baldock.
    “The turnout of 54% confirms that New Zealanders value democracy and want their voice heard. The 87.6% no vote confirms that parliament was not listening to the people when 113 of them passed the Bradford law in 2007.
    “Personally I want to thank so many people for making this referendum and result possible. There have been many hundreds of volunteers who spent many hours of their time collecting signatures who can tonight feel very good about the sacrifice they made.
    I also want to thank every Kiwi that took part by casting their vote and continuing to put their faith in our democracy.
    “Because of the oxymoronic state of non-binding referenda in this country we must now ask the Prime Minister to respect our efforts and our voices. It is time to stop claiming the ‘law is working well’ when there remains 87% opposition to it after more than 2 years.
    “I have outlined a proposal for a way forward in the document attached that I believe would respect the result of this referendum,” Mr Baldock said.

    Ends

    Contact Larry Baldock
    021864833

    Attachments: The_way_forward.doc

  • Referendum/Section 59 – The way forward.

    The way forward.

    After 27 months of opinion poll after opinion poll recording an average 80% disapproval of the anti-smacking law, the people of New Zealand have spoken loud and clear to their House of Representatives. By an overwhelming majority they have said they do not want parents criminalised for smacking their children when this is done in the context of good care and parenting.

    There are a couple of options that can achieve this in law. Act MP John Boscawen’s bill that is based on National MP Chester Borrows earlier amendment, will achieve the decriminalisation of a light smack with an open hand. However it is not my preferred option for a couple of reasons.

    If proper parliamentary process were to be followed, any new bill like this would need to be referred to a select committee to hear public submissions because of new wording that would be introduced into the law such as the definition of a smack.

    Quite frankly I think we have had enough debate about this issue already and this could be a further waste of time and resources. Sue Bradford’s ill-conceived and unpopular law change has cost an enormous amount of resources and achieved nothing positive for the nation as a whole.

    Therefore I can understand to some extent why the Prime Minister is reluctant to re-open the debate within parliament when there are many important issues facing the nation in this difficult economic recession.

    I have always felt that the Borrows type amendment still interfered too much in the way parents might correct their children. After all, a different approach is needed with a two-year-old toddler from that needed with a defiant and rebellious ten year old.

    I think the best response to the majority ‘no vote’ in the referendum is for the Prime Minister to call Parliament to one session of urgency to pass an amendment to the new sec 59 of the Crimes Act that deletes 59(2) & (3).

    Supporters of the amended sec 59 passed by parliament on May 16 2007 often claimed that you could smack a child lawfully if they were about to put their hand in the fire for example as it was permitted under 59(1).

    Sec 59. 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.

    The problem was that subclause 2 says;

    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
    And then subsection 3 says

    (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

    If Subsections 2 & 3 were deleted then the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders expressed in the referendum would be carried out, and the use of reasonable force for correction could be covered under 59(1)(d).

    Since the use of reasonable force for the purpose of correction would no longer specifically be an offence, 59 (4) could be deleted.

    However if there were concerns about the use of correction under 59(1)(d) being clearly covered, 59(4) could be amended as follows.

    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 involving the use of reasonable force for correction as part of performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting, where it is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

    Since these amendments have already been part of a lengthy select committee submission process, not to mention widespread public discussion, parliament would be justified in making such changes without referral to the public via submissions to a select committee since the public view has now been clearly expressed through the referendum.

    Ends

    Larry Baldock

    21 Aug 2009

  • Key says no to changing smacking law

    Key says no to changing smacking law

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776861/Key-says-no-to-changing-smacking-law

    By TOM FITZSIMONS, COLIN ESPINER and CLIO FRANCIS – The Dominion Post

    Smacking referendum results by electorates

    Pro-smacking campaigners are calling on the Government to fast-track a law change to allow parents to smack their children, after a thumping referendum victory.

    But Prime Minister John Key says he will not change the law, and the law’s original sponsor, Green MP Sue Bradford, says the question was so flawed the result is meaningless.

    Children’s Commissioner John Angus also joined the chorus of people saying the law should remain, as “it is good for children”.

    The referendum, which cost $8.9 million and drew a voter turnout larger than most local body elections, asked: Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    In preliminary results issued last night, 87.6 per cent of those who voted answered No, and 11.81 per cent said Yes.

    More than 1,622,000 people or 54 per cent of enrolled voters voted.

    Mr Key said he “took the message seriously” and would take a series of proposals to the Cabinet on Monday.

    The proposals stopped short of a law change, but he would not say whether he was planning to give new instructions to police. “It is my belief that the law is working and that at this point we don’t need to change the law,” he said.

    “I don’t think a law change is necessary. There are other changes that fall short of changing the law that I think can be introduced.”

    Mr Key has said he smacked his two children “very lightly and in moderation” when they were younger.

    Kiwi Party leader and poll campaigner Larry Baldock said the turnout showed how strongly people felt about the issue, and sent a firm message to Mr Key: “They want the authority back in the home and he is foolish to suggest this law is working.”

    Mr Baldock, a former MP, said the Government should bypass the select committee process and move straight to a vote in Parliament. References in the Crimes Act that barred parents from using force “for the purpose of correction” should be deleted, he said.

    He denied the poll question was biased and confusing. The law had made people angry. “Every parent has been disempowered. They’ve got children coming home and saying, `You can’t touch me’.”

    Ms Bradford said she had expected a majority “No” vote. She believed some people were so confused by the question they accidentally voted the wrong way. “Because the question is so flawed, the result is flawed. It’s not a clear indicator to the Government of what it should do, if anything.”

    Other voters had told her they had scrawled abusive comments on their ballots instead of answering the question, which could have spoiled their votes, she said.

    She accepted some people were still uncomfortable with the law, but said it should stand because “it’s a law about protecting our most vulnerable citizens”.

    Sheryl Savill, who instigated the referendum, felt “overwhelmed” by the result. “I am so pleased that such a large number of people have shown their support for this issue.”

    Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden said no data was kept about how many ballots had been written on or otherwise spoiled. But 9696 votes were recorded as “informal” because the voter’s intention could not be understood.

    Police are due to release their final report into how the law has affected their operations early next week. In reports so far, they have said its impact has been minimal.

    Turnout dwarfed the only previous citizen-initiated referendum decided by mail a 1995 question about firefighter numbers that only 26.96 per cent of voters responded to. Turnout at last year’s local body elections was about 41 per cent.

  • Citizens Initiated Referendum 2009 Preliminary Result

    http://electionresults.govt.nz/2009_citizens_referendum/

    Citizens Initiated Referendum 2009

    Preliminary Result
    21 August 2009
    The Chief Electoral Officer has released the preliminary result of the Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question
    “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    The preliminary result is based on the number of votes processed as at 7pm, Friday 21 August 2009.
    The target for the final result to be available is 5pm, Tuesday 25 August 2009.

    Votes Number of Votes
    Received    		 Percentage of Total
    Valid Votes
    For the response Yes 191,495 11.81%
    For the response No 1,420,959 87.60%
    Informal Votes 9,696 0.60%
    Total Valid Votes 1,622,150 100.00%

    The number of invalid votes cast was 802.

    Voter turnout on the basis of the preliminary results is 54.04%. Turnout is calculated by taking the total votes
    cast of 1,622,952 (being total valid and invalid votes) as a percentage of the total number of voters
    enrolled as at 30 July 2009 (3,002,968).

    Referendum Results by Electorate

  • Massive NO to Anti-Smacking Law Politicians Must Listen

    87.6%    87.6%

    87.6%

    Family First Media Release Friday 21 August

    Massive NO

    to Anti-Smacking Law

    Politicians Must Listen

    1. Amend Law
    2. Establish Non-Political Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse


    Family First NZ is welcoming the result of the anti-smacking Referendum and says that it is now time for the politicians to respect the people they represent and amend the anti-smacking law.

    “87.6% of voters have called for a law change by voting NO in the referendum. The National government should move immediately to amend the law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “John Key cannot ignore this result. To put 87.6% in perspective, at the general election last year 45% voted for National, 34% voted for Labour and 6.7% voted for the Greens. 87.6% is more than these three combined.”

    “The attempt by politicians to dismiss the Referendum as ‘ambiguous’ and irrelevant has also been rebuked by the voters. A 54% response rate in the Referendum is still significant especially when compared to just 47% voting in the recent Mt Albert by-election, an average of just over 40% voting in the recent local body elections for their mayors and city councils, and a 55% response rate which changed our whole voting system to MMP.”

    “The attack on the referendum seems to have rarked up voters because they feel like it was more of the previous ‘we the politicians know better than you and we’re not listening’ attitude. NZ’ers hoped that we had moved on from that approach.”

    Family First is calling on the government to immediately amend the anti-smacking law under urgency so that good parents are not treated as breaking the law for light smacking, and then to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse which will identify and target the real causes.

    “The 87.6% who voted NO are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children. They are simply kiwis who want to tackle the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, violence in our media, poverty and stress, and weak family ties.”

    “The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues and has had no effect on our child abuse rates. It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    ENDS

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Anti-smacking referendum: No vote wins

    Anti-smacking referendum: No vote wins

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776567/Anti-smacking-referendum-No-vote-wins

    By MICHAEL FOX – Stuff.co.nz

    Last updated 20:03 21/08/2009

    New Zealanders have overwhelmingly voted for the anti-smacking law to be canned.

    A total of 1,622,150 votes were cast with 87.6 percent in favour of repealing the controversial new law.

    The Chief Electoral Office said it would now complete checks and count voting papers still to be received, before releasing the final result.

    The preliminary results from the $9 million citizens-initiated referendum which asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” have just been released.

    Both sides of the campaign had earlier admitted this was the more likely result.

    Labour deputy leader Annette King said the referendum had allowed everyone to have their say.

    “It’s now up to the Government to determine what the next steps are. Labour is yet to see evidence that the current Act needs to be changed. It is going to be reviewed at the end of the year and we will wait to see the outcome of that.”

    The referendum followed a controversial law change in 2007 led by Green Party MP Sue Bradford, which repealed Section 59 in the Crimes Act, a clause which made it legal for parents to use reasonable force to discipline a child.

    Those leading the “Vote No” campaign had argued the law had achieved nothing and was not targeting the real causes of child abuse in New Zealand.

    The “Vote Yes” advocates wanted the law to be kept, saying fears that innocent parents would be criminalised had not eventuated and that children deserved the same protection against physical harm as adults.

    Both Prime Minister John Key and opposition leader Phil Goff have indicated they were comfortable with the law and the referendum would not necessarily change that.

    The law change made it illegal for parents to use force against their children but affords police discretionary powers not to prosecute where the offence is considered inconsequential.

  • Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2773068/Anti-smacking-side-concede-loss-likely

    Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    By MICHAEL FOX – Stuff.co.nz

    Larry Baldock

    HOT ISSUE: Larry Baldock with boxes of petitions in 2008. The petition, circulated nationwide, led to the referendum.

    Campaigners on both sides of the smacking debate believe a referendum result due out tonight will be a victory for those who opposed a controversial 2007 law change.

    We will bring you results of the referendum as soon as they are available this evening.

    Preliminary results from the controversial $9 million citizens-initiated poll are due at 8.30pm this evening  although they are not binding, and the government has not signalled any intention to act on the result.

    Those behind the referendum, which asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” believe the majority of respondents will have voted no. As of last Friday, 1,330,900 votes had been cast.

    “I’ve been working on this for 32 months and to get the final result it will be great,” Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock, who initiated the referendum, said.

    “I think it will definitely be a majority no vote.”

    The referendum follows a controversial law change in 2007 led by Green Party MP Sue Bradford which repealed Section 59 in the Crimes Act, a clause which made it legal for parents to use reasonable force to discipline a child.

    The law change made it illegal for parents to use force against their children but affords police discretionary powers not to prosecute where the offence is considered inconsequential.

    Mr Baldock said the 2007 Act should be repealed, and is so confident the majority of Kiwis feels the same that he has already organised a party at an Auckland motel for supporters, where they will gather to await the result.

    Vote Yes spokeswoman and former NZ First MP Deborah Morris-Travers said the group that opposes smacking did not expect the vote to go their way.

    “We’ve always expected that the majority vote would be a No vote because, of course, thats how the question is put. It’s a loaded question.”

    However, she said the campaign had allowed them to (miss-educate)  educate people about the law and address (spread) some of the misinformation that surrounded it.

    She pointed to the latest police statistics which, she said, proved concerns in the community that large numbers of parents would be criminalised for smacking were unfounded.

    (No any good family that comes before the Police and CYFs is unnecessary and traumatic for the family)

    The figures from the latest six-month review showed police attended 279 child assault events in the six-month review period between last October and April.

    Of those events, 39 involved “minor acts of physical discipline”, with four resulting in prosecutions. Eight of those involved smacking.

    During the previous review period, police attended 258 child assault events of which 49 were “minor acts of physical discipline” and nine involved smacking.

    Police said there had been little impact on their workloads since the law was enacted.

    “It’s hardly thousands and thousands of parents are being criminalised because they are absolutely not,” Ms Morris-Travers said

    (One good family criminalised is too many – especially if it is your family)

    She said she had detected a sea change in people’s attitudes and New Zealanders needed to give the law a chance.

    “They can have confidence in [the law] and they can have confidence in the way the police are administering the law,” she said.

    The No campaigners would be making recommendations on how the law should be changed and hoped Prime Minister John Key would act quickly, Mr Baldock said.

    Mr Baldock said little had been gained from the legislation so far.

    “If you look at all the time and money and, you know, angst thats been expended on this for the past three or four years and for what gain?” he said.

    However, both Mr Key and opposition leader Phil Goff have said they are comfortable with the legislation as it stands and a No vote would not change that.