Renton Maclachlan conducts an in-depth and enlightening interview with Dennis Morris-Traveler, spokesperson for the Yes vote campaign.
Please send this link to your friends, neighbours and relations:
Author: HEF Admin
-
YACA Welcomes Latest Report from Children’s Commissioner
YACA Welcomes Latest Report from Children’s Commissioner
Media Release
6 June 2009Youth Against Child Abuse NZ is glad that the latest report from the office of the Children’s Commissioner gets to the heart of the child abuse epidemic in New Zealand.
The report looks at assault against under 5yr olds in the light of recent findings, globally and within New Zealand. It aims to find ways to reduce the rates of abuse and neglect amongst this at-risk demographic.
“Let’s take note of this report and take some serious action,” says YACA NZ spokesperson, Caleb Brown, “The research is there and it is very specific and clear. Now we must act on it”.
The report highlighted that young babies were at most risk of abuse. The Children’s Commissioner, John Angus said that 45 children under 5yrs were seriously injured, with 5 being killed each year.
“The vast majority of NZ youth acknowledge that a parent smacking their child for the purpose of correction is not the equivalent of child abuse. It’s time for us to wake up and focus on what are proven to be the real causes of child abuse in our country.”
“The list of common causes is similar to the ones that UNICEF and CYF have provided us with, and includes drug and alcohol abuse, presence of a non-biological parent, family breakdown and poverty”, he said. “There is no need for further delay. Children are at risk, we know what the issues are, so let’s sort this out”.
ENDS
-
‘Honest’ Report on Child Abuse Welcomed
MEDIA RELEASE
4 June 2009
‘Honest’ Report on Child Abuse Welcomed
REPORT LABELLED AS ‘POLITICALLY INCORRECT’
Family First NZ is welcoming a report from the Children’s Commissioner on child abuse released today, and says that it backs the call for a Royal Commission on child abuse.
“The report entitled ‘Death and serious injury from assault of children aged under 5 years in Aotearoa New Zealand: A review of international literature and recent findings’ makes an honest assessment of the real causes of child abuse and reinforces the findings of previous UNICEF and CYF reports that we have quoted,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“The anti-smacking law was a smoke screen for dealing with the real, and much harder to deal with, causes of child abuse. It has meant that ‘normal’ families have been targeted because they’re easier to deal with, rather than the dysfunctional non-compliant families who need support and possibly intervention. This report identifies those causes and is so honest that it could almost be labeled politically incorrect.”
Risk factors for child abuse in the report included:
· ethnicity (including the high rate of abuse amongst Maori)
· drug and alcohol abuse
· mental illness
· unsupported young mothers with little or no antenatal care
· presence of a non-biological parent
· family breakdown, severe conflict and ongoing domestic violence
· poverty, instability and unemployment
“The report also identifies that families are often brought to the attention of CYF and other agencies on repeat occasions and that this should sound ‘alarm bells’. It also calls for a multi-agency approach which Family First has consistently supported.”
“While it acknowledges that home visitation programmes may reduce the likelihood of future maltreatment, their effectiveness depends on the relationship between the worker and the family. Unfortunately we have created an ‘adversarial’ approach which immediately puts families under suspicion and therefore on the defensive.”
“It is also significant that some of the research quoted comes from countries which have smacking bans. Once again, it reiterates that smacking bans simply don’t affect child abuse rates,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“At last we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the causes of child abuse and our unacceptable child abuse death rate.
Report: http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/6345/OCC_Deathand_seriousinjury2009_040609.pdf
What we’ve been saying for 3 years: www.stoptheabuse.org.nz
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
A very simple question
A very simple question
cross-posted from Big News, 14 April 2009 and http://section59.blogspot.com/ 16 April
Bill English was asked on Radio Live today whether a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction. He was asked at least six times. Here’s the transcript. It’s a classic.Radio Live Breakfast Show – 14 April 09
INTERVIEWER: The Labour Party seemed to have amended their position on Section 59, the smacking legislation. What do you think? Should a smack be allowed as part of a good – as good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, the Government’s position hasn’t changed since a compromise was done with the previous Labour Government. And the Prime Minister has said many times, as has the rest of the Government, that if there is evidence that law abiding parents are being wrong(ly)prosecuted inconsistent with the spirit of that law then we would look to change it. And has been – and there hasn’t yet been considerable enough evidence to warrant changing it.
INTERVIEWER: Well, did you think – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Well, look, I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land and needs to be enforced in a sensible way. And…
INTERVIEWER: But do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: I – I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land that should be enforced. If there is evidence that it is being enforced in instances where it’s – where it’s inappropriate because the event is
trivial or [indistinct]…
INTERVIEWER: No, no. Sorry, Minister, I just wanted to know whether you could answer that, that should – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, it’s a matter of complying with the law of the land.
INTERVIEWER: Right, it’s a simple question, isn’t it?
BILL ENGLISH: It’s like asking whether the speed limit should be – whether you should drive at 120 kilometres an hour. The law – the law…
INTERVIEWER: Well, clearly you shouldn’t.
BILL ENGLISH: That’s right. Well, the law – the law, as it stands, is the law that should be enforced.
INTERVIEWER: Do you – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental
correction? It’s simple yes or no, isn’t it?
Bill ENGLISH: Well, look, the law takes a stance about smacking and it gives the police some discretion about how they use their capacity to prosecute. If there is evidence that they are prosecuting people inappropriately, then that current government would look at changing the law.So this is the position of Bill English. Laws should be enforced. The smacking law should be complied with. A smack as part of good parental correction is against the law. There is no evidence that, quote, “law abiding parents are being wrong(ly) prosecuted”, unquote, for breaking the law when lightly smacking their kids.
What Radio Live should have asked is this: If “law abiding parents” can smack their kids for corrective purposes, how can law abiding parents be wrongly prosecuted, given correction is explicitly a crime?
-
Cabinet Minister’s Smacking Law Comments Welcomed
MEDIA RELEASE
1 June 2009
Cabinet Minister’s Smacking Law Comments Welcomed
Family First NZ is welcoming comments made by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett in a radio interview over the weekend.
When a caller to the programme on Newstalk ZB asked the Minister whether she thought a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in NZ, the Minister responded ‘No I don’t, I believe that actually good parenting should be left to do that in their different ways in their different homes and I don’t have an interest in going into people’s homes and telling them how to parent’.
“This is a welcome change to the previous message that parents have received from politicians that ‘we know best how to raise your kids’,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Ms Bennett is also willing to acknowledge the difference between a smack as part of good parental correction, and child abuse. She went on to say ‘I’ve got the hat on of being hugely hugely concerned with serious abuse – now I think they’re very different things so do understand I’m not saying that section 59 was ever going to stop that…’. She also admitted that she would never have introduced an anti-smacking bill.”
Paula Bennett now joins Labour leader Phil Goff as having indicated that a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a crime in NZ, as the law currently stands. This is the question being asked in the upcoming Referendum on the anti-smacking law.
The Minister also acknowledged the level of daily concern from parents regarding the law and its impact on their parenting and the attitude of children.
“If the politicians believe that the law as it currently stands is wrong, they should save the country $10m on a Referendum and amend the law now,” says Mr McCoskrie. “They can simply adopt the private members bill put forward by ACT MP John Boscawen, and then heed the calls for a Royal Commission to target 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
-
Human Rights Commission Acknowledges Uncertainty of Anti-Smacking Law
MEDIA RELEASE
26 May 2009
Human Rights Commission Acknowledges Uncertainty of Anti-Smacking Law
Family First NZ says that the Human Rights Commission has acknowledged the uncertainty of the anti-smacking law.
In response to a formal complaint by Family First NZ that the anti-smacking law is vague and uncertain, the Human Rights Commission has acknowledged the potential uncertainty of the law but was not convinced that the earlier version of section 59 ‘provided any better guidance than the present legislation’.
“This is despite agreeing with Family First that ‘individuals must be able to regulate their conduct with a reasonable degree of certainty as to the legal consequences of acting one way rather than another’, says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “They still prefer the amendment due mainly to its adherence to UN requirements.”
“Recent research by Curia Marketing Research found widespread confusion about the effect of the law. 55% of the respondents said that smacking was always illegal, 31% said it wasn’t, and 14% didn’t know. A recent Families Commission report showed that immigrant families are confused by the anti-smacking law and see smacking as a viable option for correcting their children.”
The Commission argues that parents who disagree with any prosecution can judicially review the police for a decision to prosecute.
“But most parents would be completely unaware of this option, and would be skeptical that it was likely to offer any solution.”
Parents have been given conflicting messages by the promoters of the law. Legal opinions have contradicted each other, and on top of that there is ‘police discretion’ but not CYF discretion to investigate. Parents have a right to a clear and precise law. This current law has created confusion. Good parents are being victimised and the real causes of child abuse ignored,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“Parenting is not for cowards but this law is making it pretty scary.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Smacking Equated with Torture and Death Penalty
MEDIA RELEASE
20 May 2009
Smacking Equated with Torture and Death Penalty
Family First NZ says that the United Nations Committee on Torture has equated a kiwi parent using a smack for the purpose of correction as a form of torture, and compared the anti-smacking law to the abolition of the death penalty.
“This report has been promoted by groups supporting the anti-smacking law including Plunket, Barnardos, the Families Commission and EPOCH and shows a view of parenting completely removed from reality,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“To link a parent who corrects a child using a smack with torture, the death penalty, and tasering of violent offenders is both breathtaking and insulting, and shows why these groups have failed to get the huge majority of NZ parents on side in this debate.”
“They argue that the anti-smacking law has been introduced to meet the recommendations made by both the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Committee on Torture.”
“This simply reinforces the overriding concern that the anti-smacking law had nothing to do with child abuse and was more to do with an ideologically flawed and UN-driven agenda.”
“But 80% of NZ’ers knew that the anti-smacking law would have no affect on child abuse anyway,” says Bob McCoskrie. “It’s time we tackled the real causes.”
Full report: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SNAA-7S49PY?OpenDocument
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Ruling on scan offer before abortions
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2390236/Ruling-on-scan-offer-before-abortions
Ruling on scan offer before abortions
By EMILY WATT – The Dominion Post
Women should be offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound scan of their baby before they decide to abort it, the Health and Disability Commissioner says.
Anti-abortion group Right to Life complained to the commissioner after finding four district health boards Auckland, Waikato, Wairarapa and Canterbury did not offer women the chance to view the scan before going ahead with an abortion. Waikato DHB said it was an “infringement of the patient’s rights” to offer it.
Commissioner Ron Paterson said any pregnant woman should be told of their right to view an ultrasound, and it was up to them whether they did or not.
It is a debate that is raging in the United States, where a number of states are considering passing laws that would force women to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Some want them to listen to a fetal heartbeat as well. Critics have labelled the proposals “emotional blackmail”.
New Zealand’s abortion rates are high, with more than one in five known pregnancies in New Zealand aborted. In 2007 the most recent statistics available 18,380 abortions were done.
The High Court made a landmark ruling last year that expressed “powerful misgivings” about the lawfulness of many abortions. That decision is due to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal next week.
Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said offering women the opportunity to view an ultrasound scan would reduce abortions. He said American research showed when women considering an abortion were given the opportunity to view a scan, a large number of them chose not to go ahead.
Right to Life last year canvassed 13 DHBs to see whether they offer women considering abortion the chance to view ultrasound scans, which are taken to help determine the week of the pregnancy. Four did not.
Commissioner Ron Paterson has written to Waikato District Health board chief executive Craig Climo saying it was a woman’s choice whether or not to view the scan.
“She needs the information that she has the ability to view the scan to make this choice,” he wrote. Health Waikato said it supported the commissioner’s advice.Mr Paterson told The Dominion Post his comments “should not be misconstrued as being about abortion”.
“Most pregnant women undergoing an ultrasound scan would expect to be told that they can see the scan image if they wish to. There is nothing novel about confirming that the law entitles them to do so.”
He said in some cases it would be “distressing and inappropriate” to ask a woman if she wanted to see her scan.
Mr Orr now wants the abortion consent form changed so women confirm they were offered the chance to see the ultrasound.
Health Minister Tony Ryall said it was “a matter that should be addressed to the Abortion Supervisory Committee and I have directed Mr Orr to them”.