Simon Barnett Explains the Referendum in 90 Seconds
Author: HEF Admin
-
Referendum
CONFUSED?
You soon will beFor the past 72 hours, politicians and commentators have screemed that the Referendum question is confusing
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ”
It seems pretty clear to us! The law currently says that a good parent raising great kids who uses a light smack for the purpose of correction is committing a criminal offence – subject to a possible complaint, possible investigation and temporary removal of kids by CYF, and possible investigation and in some cases prosecution by the police. (these have all happened – view cases HERE)
But please take a quick moment to listen to this…
Green MP Sue Bradford attempts to explain the effect of the anti-smacking law to an increasingly confused National Radio’s Sean Plunket this morning Classic Confusion!!!
Try and listen to the whole thing – and then ask yourself “so what am I legally allowed to do??” (An excellent written summary by Blogger Dave Crampton HERE )Doesn’t it seem incredible that our politicians are confused by the Referendum question – yet expect parents to understand the anti-smacking law, how it will be enforced, and its effect on how they should parent.
This is why the referendum question is worded the way it is – because not even Sue Bradford knows the present answer.
And that’s why we’ll continue to fight to have it fixed.
Have a great weekend
Bob McCoskrie
National Director -
PM Won’t Hear Evidence He Wants On Smacking Law
MEDIA RELEASE
17 June 2009
PM Won’t Hear Evidence He Wants On Smacking Law
Family First NZ is again asking the Prime Minister to meet with them to view cases of good parents being prosecuted under the anti-smacking law.
“In Parliament today, John Key said ‘I have given New Zealand parents a commitment that if the law did not work, I would change it. I stand by that commitment. But I have seen no evidence to date that the law is not working.’ We have that evidence but so far the Prime Minister has refused to see it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“We have a number of cases that have been made available to us of parents being prosecuted under the new law. These have been independently examined by a senior police officer who believes that they show that the law is not working.”
“A response received this week to our Official Information Act request shows that there have been nine prosecutions under the new law in the first 15 months since the law was passed. Many of these cases have resulted in the parent being discharged without conviction, sent to a parenting course, or receiving a suspended sentence. Other parents have been referred to CYF and had children removed while an investigation takes place. This is highly traumatic for any family.”
“The Prime Minister cannot say that he has seen no evidence when he is not willing to view that evidence,” says Mr McCoskrie.
Family First is writing to the Prime Minister to again request a meeting to show the evidence.
“Once he sees these examples, he can save $9m on a Referendum, move to amend the law to protect light smacking, and establish a Commission of Enquiry to tackle the real causes of child abuse.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Latest Smacking Poll – Same Result
MEDIA RELEASE
17 June 2009
Latest Smacking Poll – Same Result
Family First NZ says the latest poll on smacking shows that the opposition to non-abusive smacking remains minimal and the law should be changed now rather than after a costly Referendum.
“The Yahoo online poll has had over 16,000 votes and shows huge support for parents using a smack for the purpose of correction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This poll simply reflects every independent poll done both before the law was changed and after the law was changed.”
The question asks “Is smacking an acceptable form of punishment for kids?”
35% (5696 votes) responded ‘Yes, if they need a short, sharp shock’ and 52% (8451 votes) said ‘Sometimes – if the situation demands it.”
Only 11% (1870 votes) said ‘No, it’s never okay’, and 2% were undecided.
Family First is calling on the government to establish a Commission of Enquiry into tackling the real causes of child abuse.
“We owe it to good parents to get this law right,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Let’s target the real causes of child abuse – not real parents.”
AFTER LAW PASSED
Curia Research Mar 08 83% want law changed to allow light smacking
Research International Feb 2008 74% parents should be able to smackCuria Research May 08 85% want law changed to allow light smacking
TVNZ June 08 85% NO – do you think anti-smacking law should stay
NZ Herald Online Poll 25 June 2008 Should there be a referendum on the smacking legislation at this year’s election?
Yes: 3746 (81%) No: 878 (19%) Total Votes: 4624
Otago Daily Times 28 June 08 68% up to parents to decide
(280 votes) 21% children should be legally protected
11% depends on the case
www.littlies.co.nz/ July 2008 One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective?
Yes (7%)
No (87%)
Unsure (7%)NZ Herald Sep 08 Should smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ 86% No
Online 90% (2800 votes)
BEFORE LAW PASSED
MARAE DigiPoll (1,000 Maori voters) 80%
Anti-smackingvote.co.nz Apr 2007 70% (43,000 votes!)
http://www.antismackingvote.co.nz/poll+results Zenago Internet Solutions
Treasures website Apr 2007 85% (1972 votes)
Waikato Times Apr 4 2007 87%
TV3 TNS Mar 29 2007 69% (70% support smacking) **
TVNZ Colmar Brunton Mar 26 2007 83%
Research NZ Mar 26 2007 73%
Bay of Plenty Times Text Poll Mar 26 2007 94.6%
TV3 Website poll Mar 14 2007 89%
NZ News – Yahoo .com Mar 13 2007 92% (7643 votes)
TV3 News Poll Mar 2007 83%
NZ Herald Feb 2007 90% (3874 votes)
TVNZ website Feb 2007 87%
STUFF website July 2006 82% (6700 votes!)
TVNZ website July 2006 88%
Bay of Plenty Times May 2006 83%
Child Abuse Conference Feb 2006 82%
STUFF website Feb 2006 84%
Dominion Post Feb 2006 82%
STUFF website March 2005 86%
NZ Herald July 2005 71%
STUFF website June 2005 82%
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Bradford Referendum Bill Should be Sent to Time Out
MEDIA RELEASE
17 June 2009
Bradford Referendum Bill Should be Sent to Time Out
Family First NZ says that NZ’ers have no problem understanding the Referendum question, and the claims that it is misleading and ambiguous is simply an expression of frustration from the politicians who introduced the flawed law in the first place.
“The squeals of horror coming from the politicians is not because of the question asked, but because of the answer that they come to – no!,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“The law currently states that a good parent raising great kids and who may use a smack on the bottom for the purpose of correction is to be treated under the law in the same way as a rotten parent who abuses their kids.”
“This is complete nonsense, shows a disrespect for the already difficult role of parenting, and explains why the opposition to the anti-smacking law continues to remain at such high levels.”
“NZ’ers are desparate for laws that target the real causes of child abuse – not laws that target real parents.”
“Sue Bradford’s proposal to amend the law is simply chucking the toys out of the cot in a tantrum, and the proposal should be immediately sent to ‘time out’,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
PM Attempting to Shut Down Referendum Debate
MEDIA RELEASE
18 June 2009
PM Attempting to Shut Down Referendum Debate
Family First NZ is annoyed with comments by the Prime Minister John Key that he will ignore the results of the upcoming anti-smacking Referendum and will not be allowing Families Commissioner Christine Rankin to enter the debate.
“The Referendum is an expensive exercise made necessary because of a failure by politicians to listen to the voters,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It is hypocritical of politicians to criticize the cost when their own actions have led to this public outcry.”
“John Key is undermining the process by suggesting that, while he will ‘listen to the public’, any law change will be subject to what he thinks.”
“It is especially ironic because while he was the leader of the Opposition he said
The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become.”
Family First has provided the evidence he has set as the benchmark for changing the law – that is, evidence of good families being prosecuted in court under the anti-smacking law.“It is also completely unacceptable that he is attempting to shut down debate by preventing Christine Rankin from being part of the debate. It appears that the government has adopted an attitude of ‘agree with us or don’t speak’.”
“This suggests that the new government is following down the road of the previous government – which ultimately led to its downfall – of ignoring the voice of NZ’ers and shutting down debate,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Sue Reid: Smacking laws were never about the real issue of child abuse
This was in the NZ Herald .
It is a shame that we have a Families Commission that is driven by ideology rather than listening to families.
Chief commissioner Jan Pryor espouses her beliefs that “positive parenting should never include a smack” (Herald, April 3).
Her so-called justification for the anti-smacking laws are inflammatory and continue to vilify good parents who may use a smack as part of good parental correction.
As a mother of two young children, I resent the constant barrage that fully funded, power-packed organisations such as the Families Commission can constantly deliver from their lofty soap-boxes.
One can be left wondering who represents mums like me who are focused on the task of raising good, law-abiding and positive contributors to society. Like many other mums, I know that I wish to parent within a sensible legal framework and we owe it to good parents to get this law right.
The new flawed law has tried to link a smack on the bottom with child abuse of the worst kind and has put good parents in the same category as rotten parents who are a danger to their kids and to society.
Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change – the same rate as before the change. The smacking laws were never about addressing the real issue of child abuse but to undermine and criminalise good parents.
Contrary to Pryor’s comments, the new law did introduce a new criminal offence – smacks for the purpose of correction, no matter how light, are a crime.
Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for “minor acts of physical discipline” and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated – yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.
And there has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF’s notifications, but the cases warranting further investigation haven’t increased – in other words, valuable resources and time are taken away from the front line to deal with the real cases of abuse.
Family First NZ has plenty of evidence on its website of families being investigated and traumatised for complaints of light smacking, including parents who are referred to CYF by so-called helping agencies when they are simply seeking help, and of children ringing CYF to complain about their parents – imagine what that is like for a family.
Pryor asks families to seek help but in a culture of being labelled “lowest common denominator”, this will do nothing to support and foster good parenting.
She says “there is no legal justification for the use of force to correct a child’s behaviour”, so why does “positive parenting” not include correction? As a mother I need to be able to teach my child right from wrong and it is an ongoing process to “correct” my child’s behaviour – society expects me to fulfil this role.
We can all lament the daily cases in the media whereby individuals have not “corrected” their behaviour and have become a blight on society. Many parents would testify to aspects that are less than positive in the training of a child for the adult world.
I am sure the child does not see “time out” in a positive light nor see grounding as positive. Parents are often seen in negative light when they proceed with knowing best what will work for their child.
The role of parent is set apart from other relationships such as in the workplace or a sports team. Parents have the reserved responsibility to raise, train and shape the will and character of their child to maturity. Adults have already mastered that task – so the argument that Pryor puts forth about smacking another adult is null and void.
It is important to progress through to a referendum in July. This issue continues to be a strong, unresolved matter for most parents. After all, this was a citizens’ initiated referendum and the democratic process needs to complete its cycle by asking the voting public, “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?”
People who don’t like the question in the referendum simply don’t like the answer they come to.
Organisations such as the Families Commission would better serve families when they consider the attitudes, needs and requirements of families rather than using their government-funded weight to impose a flawed ideology on to good, healthy, functioning families.
* Sue Reid is a researcher and writer for Family First NZ.
-
Send a message that John Key simply can’t ignore
Send a message that John Key simply can’t ignore
Anti-Smacking Postal Referendum
July 31 – August 21 2009
In the first three weeks of August, NZ’ers will finally have a chance to have their say on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law.
Since the Referendum was formally announced, there has been a media EXPLOSION
* Campaign begins for referendum on child discipline – The Electoral Enrollment Centre begins a campaign on Monday to remind voters to check they are enrolled for a referendum on the anti-smacking law
* Vote unlikely to bring law change – The Government is unlikely to change the anti-smacking law regardless of the result of the $9 million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says
* MP’s slate smacking poll words – Because they don’t like the answer they come to, and the effect of the law they passed!
* Leaders won’t vote in smacking poll – Neither Prime Minister John Key nor Labour leader Phil Goff will vote in the smacking referendum
* Big two coy on smacking vote – A national referendum is re-igniting debate on the anti-smacking law two years on
* Latest smacking poll – same result – Family First Media Release 17 June 09
* PM attempting to shut down Referendum debate – Family First Media Release 16 June 09Now there is the chance to tell the politicians to change the anti-smacking law so that we have laws that acknowledge and value the important role of good parents – but also demand that the real causes of child abuse are targeted.
Family First will be one of the groups speaking up and encouraging NZ’ers to vote NO!
Our plan:
* web-based and media-based
* networking by email
* media interviews
* simply presenting the factsOur need?
Simple really. We need your financial support .The ‘opposition’ has no difficulty with funding .
Groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Parents Centre, Families Commission, Children’s Commissioner , and other government-funded organisations are well funded thanks to you – the taxpayer . And they’ve been busy running seminars, websites, sending out briefing sheets to MP’s, publishing newsletters, employing staff especially for this issue, and sending out social workers far and wide pushing their message.How do they really view kiwi parents?
If you oppose the anti-smacking law as so many NZ’ers do, you’re demonised as ‘violent’, and a parent who supports ‘bashing’ and ‘assaulting’ children. These groups should hang their head in shame for labelling kiwi parents in such a way.
* Former Children’s Commissioner Ian Hassell referred to opponents to the anti-smacking law as the ‘child-beating lobby ‘
LISTEN HERE * Sue Bradford referred to Family First as the pro-violence lobby
* Barnardos spokeswoman Deborah Morris-Travers said in a Christchurch Press article today “.. Our views of children are perhaps a bit more modern and up to date compared to the other side of the debate …..”* but the classic quote of the week also comes from Barnardos when Morris-Travers denied the 300,000+ who signed the petition – and the poll after poll after poll that shows 80%+ opposing the law – and makes this statement about Family First
LISTEN
(By the way, this letter is being sent to you by email and will be posted on our website after I talk to my wife on my mobile !!!!)WOULD YOU CONSIDER INVESTING IN OUR voteNO CAMPAIGN?
We will not get a single cent from the government in this Referendum – unlike the opposing argument.
Every donation – large and small – will enable us to get the facts out there, and to promote the important role of parents, the welfare of children, and the real issues of child abuse.
Thanks for your consideration. Together, we can bring some sanity to this debate and demand that the real causes of child abuse are confronted.
Kind regards
Bob McCoskrie
National DirectorAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 – 1797)