Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • Smacking poll in hands of mother

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/2550600/Smacking-poll-in-hands-of-mother

    Smacking poll in hands of mother

    By NICK VENTER – The Dominion Post

    Last updated 05:00 30/06/2009
    LAST WORD: The referendum on the anti-smacking law will not go ahead if promoter Sheryl Savill withdraws her petition.

    LAST WORD: The referendum on the anti-smacking law will not go ahead if promoter Sheryl Savill withdraws her petition.

    The dark-haired, bespectacled woman talking forcefully across an outdoor table laden with scones, cake and drinks on Family First’s pro-smacking website does not have a bionic arm and cannot run faster than a speeding car. But Sheryl Savill is New Zealand’s $6 million woman.

    The mother of two and policeman’s wife will have the final say this week on whether another $6m is spent on a referendum that Prime Minister John Key says the Government will ignore.

    That is because the petition calling for a referendum on the anti-smacking law was submitted in her name.

    A spokeswoman for the chief electoral officer said yesterday that $700,000 had already been spent preparing for the August referendum and a public information campaign costing $2.2m had also begun.

    If the referendum goes ahead it will cost another $6m. However, if Ms Savill withdraws her petition before the governor-general issues the writ, the last day for which is Friday, the referendum can be cancelled.

    Family First director Bob McCoskrie and petition organiser Larry Baldock say that will not happen unless the Government agrees to decriminalise smacking.

    “The consequences of this law remaining in New Zealand are far too serious and will cost the country far more than the cost of the referendum,” Mr Baldock said.

    He said Ms Savill, who is in the United States on a family holiday, was chosen as the petition promoter because she was a mother.

    “She was concerned about the law and as a young mum felt she was prepared to put her name to it.”

    Ms Savill, 40, has asked petition organisers not to give her contact details to the news media, but her views are explained in the video produced for the Vote No website. “I’m the mum of two lovely girls and when I realised how the anti-smacking law would directly affect the way I was raising my girls I knew that I had to do something,” she says, children and friends seated nearby.

    “A light smack done in a good home that’s full of love sure isn’t child abuse.”

    Mr McCoskrie said Ms Savill’s girls were aged about eight and 11. He declined to say whether she smacked them. “I can’t answer that. I won’t answer that on her behalf. I’m not going to comment on her parenting practice. All I know is that she is supporting the law change.”

    Ms Savill, of South Auckland, works as a “communicator” for a conservative critics say Right wing evangelical organisation, Focus on the Family. Its headquarters are in the United States and it offers advice on parenting and marriage.

    Family First Comment : The Referendum is actually in the hands of the Prime Minister. 300,000-plus signatures, 80% support for amending the anti-smacking law. Only the PM can prevent a costly Referendum. And Sheryl isn’t the $9 million dollar woman. Each person who signed the petition (300k) is the $30 protester!!!

  • Woman behind smacking referendum ‘concerned’ mum

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/63271/woman-behind-smacking-referendum-039concerned039-mum

    Woman behind smacking referendum

    ‘concerned’ mum

    Mon, 29 Jun 2009

    The one woman with the power to halt the $9 million “anti-smacking” referendum is a “concerned” South Auckland married mother of two.

    A Research New Zealand survey of 481 people released yesterday found 77 percent of respondents thought the referendum was a waste of money, 18 percent supported it and 5 percent were unsure.

    Prime Minister John Key said it was up to the referendum’s instigator to decide whether to go ahead or not.

    The referendum asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”.

    Opponents of a 2007 law change, which removed the reasonable force defence in child abuse cases, want the public to vote no.

    Sheryl Savill, who is currently on a two-week family holiday in the United States and unavailable to media, works for Focus on the Family New Zealand – a member of the Vote No coalition – and is the instigator of the poll.

    “Her role as proposer is simply because of being a concerned mum”, Family First director Bob McCoskrie said.

    Mrs Savill, 40, has two daughters with her policeman husband and has worked for Focus since 2006.

    She is the programme manager for the parent education programme Drug Proof Your Kids.

    In an opinion piece for the New Zealand Centre for Political Research in August, Mrs Savill said she did not normally get involved in politics but “knew she had to do something”.

    “The government was intruding, yet again, into the lives or parents and, as a mum, I was really concerned about the impact that this type of bill would have on my family,” she wrote.

    “To remove and undermine a parent’s authority in their own home is a treacherous area for the State to wade into.”

    New Zealand needs to deal with “real causes” of child abuse, Mrs Savill said.

    Mr McCoskrie said that, “as discussed” with Mrs Savill before she left on holiday, the referendum would only be withdrawn if the law was amended.

    “The responsibility for the referendum continuing currently lies fairly and squarely with the Government.”

    The referendum has been criticised as being confusing, as some people who support the status quo may think that is what they are voting for if they tick no.

    The Government believes the law is working as intended and police are only prosecuting serious cases.

    The non-binding, citizens-initiated referendum will be held by postal ballot from July 31 to August 21.

  • Read real-life stories of how the Anti-smacking law has hurt Kiwi families…

    Click on the writing below:

  • CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM REPORT

    CIR Update no.32
    CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM REPORT

    Only 55 days to referendum day! August 21.


    Greetings, Another busy week as media continued to carry more news of the impending referendum.
    Congratulations to Bob McCoskrie and team on a successful launch of the http://www.voteno.org.nz website. If you haven’t seen it yet I encourage you to take a good look. Lots of useful downloads and information. Simon Barnett has done a great job fronting it with a 90 sec video, and has been prepared to make his stand for the principles he believes in.  Thanks Simon, Jody and family.  We are proud of you!

    Also Muriel Newman’s NZCPR weekly newsletter was entitled “A smack in the face of democracy.” Muriel wrote a great article and invited me to be her guest commentator. Click on the link above if you haven’t received it direct. None of these events were co-ordinated or planned but the timing turned out to be great.

    The controversy over Christine Rankin’s appointment to the Families Commission has helped keep media interest alive this week with stories about her being required by the PM to not actively campaign for a ‘NO’ vote.  You may have heard Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor say on National Radio that there had been robust debate amongst commissioners previously about the Families Commissions official position on the anti-smacking law. Since in her own words she said the debate was robust, there is a clear indication that the seven previous commissioners were not all in support of the law change.  Hear the interview here

    Now with two new Commissioners that we believe would be opposed to the anti-smacking law, it would be very interesting indeed if the Families Commission had a fresh debate and vote concerning it’s official position of support for the law change.
    You can hear my interview with Geoff Robinson here.
    Perhaps if you were of a mind to write to the Chief Families Commissioner to urge them to re-open the discussion it would be a good way of supporting Christine Rankin.

    Last week we had several meetings with media and creative production teams to finalise plans for Radio and TV advertising campaigns for vote NO.  Under the laws governing CIR anyone wanting advertise to promote one of the answers to the referendum question cannot spend more than $50,000.  View Sec 42 of the CIR Act

    It is fairly obvious already that the Yes vote coalition has been spending up large to spread their half-truths and misinformation. I will give you some examples of this next week.

    We need your help to make our campaign to the finish line in this long battle to make sure ‘the voice of the people is not drowned out!’ We have raised approx one third of our budget so far. Can you help us raise the rest of the total of $50,000? Whether you can afford $10, $20, $50, $500 or much more, whatever the amount, it will be an investment for the future protection of families in New Zealand.

    You can send your checks made out to CIR Referendum, P.O. Box 9228, Greerton, 3142 Tauranga or direct Internet banking to our solicitors, McKenzie Elvin Trust account


    For CIR Referendum Trust        02 0432 0393 450-02


    Or donate on line with credit card via our Kiwi Party website donation page DONATE
    100% of all donations will be used for the advertising campaign. The ads will not be mentioning the Kiwi Party.

    Finally this week, a woman who writes under the pseudonym of Nonen Titi, has self published a book called ‘The Happiness Inquisition.” This fictional novel attempts to portray what the possible ramifications of the anti-smacking law will be in our communities and I found it a worthwhile read. You may find it useful to give to a friend to help explain why this law is bad and must go.

    To view the book cover and make any orders click on her website link. The cost is $10 incl postage in NZ. http://www.nonentiti.com

    Warm regards,
    Larry Baldock

  • Referendum Cost Unfortunate Outcome of Political ‘Deafness’

    MEDIA RELEASE
    28 June 2009
    Referendum Cost Unfortunate Outcome of Political ‘Deafness’
    Family First NZ is not surprised by a poll today that says that 77% of NZ’ers think the Referendum is a waste
    of money, and says that the government should save the taxpayer $9 million on a postal referendum and
    simply fix the anti-smacking law now as demanded by 80% of kiwis.
    “It is incredible that in the midst of a recession, the government will be spending that amount of money to tell
    them what they already know – that the law should be fixed,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family
    First NZ.
    “But that is the unfortunate price of ‘political deafness’. The blame for having to even have a Referendum is
    pointed fairly and squarely at the politicians. Even supporters of the Referendum would say that the
    Referendum is a waste of money – but completely necessary in the circumstances.”
    “The Referendum has resulted in a huge amount of time, energy and resources being spent collecting the
    300,000-plus signatures to force the Referendum in the hope that the government would be spurred to amend
    the law and target the real causes of child abuse. Unfortunately they remained deaf.”
    “The law can be easily fixed  by removing the criminality of parents who use reasonable force for the purpose
    of correcting their children.
    “The politicians have tried to paint the Referendum as confusing. They should try explaining the anti-smacking
    law to parents,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    “NZ’ers are crying out for politicians to listen to the voice of the people and to tackle the real causes of child
    abuse, without criminalising and threatening good parents with investigation and interference from already
    overworked police and CYF social workers,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    ENDS
    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Senior Labour MP Says Referendum Not Confusing

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 June 2009

    Senior Labour MP Says Referendum Not Confusing

    Family First NZ is welcoming comments by a senior Labour MP that the Referendum wording is not confusing.

    Pete Hodgson was a Minister of Health, Minister for Economic Development, Minister of Research, Science and Technology and Minister for Tertiary Education under the previous Labour government.

    A constituent recently wrote to the MP and said:

    ““Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in NZ” This is a most unambiguous question: given that the defense of reasonable force was repealed in the legislation passed last year as part of Sue Bradford’s bill and therefore parents who even lightly tapped their child could be prosecuted if the police elected to do so. It is misleading for anyone to say the above is an ambiguous question. It is patently clear what it is asking. The reason to argue for ambiguity is to try and confuse the issue in order to undermine the referendum. To refuse to vote on the basis of the ambiguity of the question is the ultimate act of fence sitting and self preservation. If one believes the question is wrong then one and the legislation is correct then one should vote accordingly!”

    In response, Mr Hodgson simply wrote “agreed”.

    “The smokescreen which has been created around the Referendum has simply been an attempt by some politicians to attempt to ridicule and dismiss an issue that they don’t want to resurface,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It has been a direct attack on the process of democracy. And the cost can only be attributed to their deafness on this issue.”

    Family First is calling on the government to amend the anti-smacking law so that a non-abusive smack for the purpose of correction is not a criminal offence.

    “300,000 signatures, an 80%-average in all the polls, and now a senior Labour MP, shows the country is not confused as to what they want on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    Friday, 26 June 2009, 11:51 am

    Anti-smacking legislation counterproductive and an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    Peter Tashkoff, Spokesperson for Maori issues

    Anti-smacking legislation is not simply useless, but is in fact making the problem worse. What’s more it is an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga of whanau, ACT New Zealand Maori Issues Spokesperson Peter Tashkoff said today.

    “This well meaning legislation is based on a false ideology that attacks the Tino-Rangatiratanga of families, and has had the opposite effect to what even its supporters intended,” Mr. Tashkoff said.

    “Why do we have this legislation to begin with? It was sold to us as a way to stop kids being violently assaulted by their caregivers, but now we see that if anything, things have gotten worse. This is known as the law of unintended consequences; it’s what you get when you pass laws based on ideology. The supporters of the bill are now claiming that was never the intention, and that somehow the bill was just meant to make us all nicer people.

    “It’s rubbish of course, all that the bill does is move one notch closer to a situation where the people have no power and the state has it all. If a child refuses to go to school the whanau are not allowed to lift a finger to make them, yet a complete stranger working for the state is allowed to use whatever force is needed to do so. In the same way, you can’t smack a child that refuses to obey, but try not paying your taxes and just watch what extent the state can go to in order to force your obedience. This is an insult to the dignity of families and an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga. When as a country did we ever buy into the ridiculous notion that strangers care more about kids than their parents do?

    “And look at the effect on whanau. Sure its fine if you have the regulation 2.4 kids, or your kids are very young, but look at the larger families, which is where Maori are at, and see what’s going on. I’ve heard reports of kids running riot the length and breadth of the country. This law, which was meant to make things better, has simply loaded more stress onto families and has led to more, not less, conflict in the home. Supporters of the law have tried to pass off this effect as being as a result of ‘higher reporting by the police to CYFs’ but that’s simply a rationalisation to excuse an effect that doesn’t agree with their ideology. Parents in these homes know that after the law was passed children became more challenging and more undisciplined, and that conflict and stress levels in the home rose, not fell. The law has made things worse not better.

    “Irrespective of a small number of criminally minded people that carry out extreme violence whether to children or adults, there can be no question that the people that care most about kids are their own parents, not strangers paid by

    “That’s some of the reasons why the

    ACT party stands for the repeal of

    this anti-smacking legislation, and

    that’s why I do too,”

    said Mr Tashkoff

    ENDS

  • Heather Roy – Anti-Smacking Referendum

    Speech: Roy – Anti-Smacking Referendum

    Wednesday, 24 June 2009, 3:55 pm
    Speech: ACT New Zealand

    Anti-Smacking Referendum

    Hon Heather Roy, ACT Deputy Leader
    Hon Heather Roy – General Debate, Slot One; Parliament; Wednesday, June 24 2009.

    Violence is not acceptable in any shape or form. It is a plague that haunts our communities, and violence against the vulnerable – against our children – is totally abhorrent.

    I say that as a mother, and as a politician. That’s why we have laws that are explicit about violent behaviour and which impose punishments on those in our society who choose to inflict violence on others.

    The Anti-Smacking Bill – repeal of Section 59 – was promoted as the solution to the terrible abuse suffered by too many children. Details published around these cases – the Kahui twins, Lillybing, Nia Glassie and far too many other children – were so repugnant that I couldn’t read them.

    But the Anti-Smacking Bill is not the answer to stopping child abuse. The debate has relied on emotion rather than reason, and focussed on rules rather than results. The unintended result of the smacking ban has been to criminalise hundreds of thousands of good parents.

    Those who beat children to a pulp have never paid attention to the law and never will. The police have been told to use their discretion when complaints are made, but this makes a farce of the law. Laws must be clear, enforceable and regularly enforced to be effective. This is not the case we have now.

    What really surprised New Zealanders during the anti-smacking debate was the flip-flop of the National Party. They did a complete U-turn after opposing the Bill all the way through.

    It is only the ACT Party that believes that intrusion of the State into the homes of good parents is unacceptable.

    More than 300,000 people signed a petition to hold a referendum on the question: should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand.

    It is a question that has divided the country – not 50/50; not even 60/40. It has split the New Zealand Parliament from the rest of New Zealand. A Parliament that voted 113 to eight in support of the Anti-Smacking Bill, but which ignored polls showing public opinion was opposed to the Bill by a ratio of four to one.

    It is no wonder the people of New Zealand feel alienated – that the politicians are not listening. ACT supports this referendum; we support the people of New Zealand having a say; we support democracy. We do so because this Parliament has refused to listen to the people.

    Prime Minister John Key has dismissed the referendum as an irrelevance and that the result will not change his mind. I’d ask the Prime Minister to reflect on those statements and consider the anguish and confusion that the Anti-Smacking Bill has had around the country.

    Proponents of the law say it is working; that it is reducing child abuse – but 13 children have been killed since this law was passed 25 months ago. The long list of names we had before the Bill was passed continues to grow.

    This law targets the wrong people. The thugs and bullies, the child abusers, the real criminals – not good parents – will continue to assault and murder children. It won’t stop the James Whakarurus, Delcelia Witikas or Tamati Pokaias from being abused and killed.

    What it does do is frighten, confuse and prevent loving parents from parenting. The ACT Party is the only Party in this House that opposed the anti-smacking law; we were the only Party to publicly support the referendum to allow New Zealanders to have a say and we remain the only party committed to reforming the law to protect loving New Zealand families.

    ENDS

  • Real Issues – Referendum

    Real Issues – Referendum

    Friday, 26 June 2009, 9:24 am

    Real Issues No. 344 – Referendum

    Maxim Institute – Real Issues – No. 344 25 June 2009 http://www.maxim.org.nz

    REFERENDUM ANGST

    The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like ‘the law is working’ and ‘the question is weird.’ The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. ‘Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’ Committed to his brokered ‘compromise’ John Key can’t afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can’t afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent’s right to make disciplinary decisions. So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout. This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don’t care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it. Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum–from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone–it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy–especially when others are not.

    Enrol to vote http://www.elections.org.nz