Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • Nats won’t change child-discipline law, says Key

    Family First:

    We have been asked on a number of occasions where does National stand on the anti-smacking law, and will they change it if elected as the government.

    Here’s the answer…
     Nats won’t change child-discipline law, says Key
    The Press 26 June 2008
    National Party leader John Key has ruled out overturning the controversial child-discipline law if he becomes Prime Minister, despite championing a referendum on the issue. In Parliament yesterday, he accused Prime Minister Helen Clark of “ignoring the will of the New Zealand people” and urged a referendum be held on the so-called “anti-smacking” legislation at election time. His call came after Clark announced the Government had accepted official advice that it was too late to hold a referendum this year.

    Asked by The Press afterwards if a National government would consider revoking the law as a result of a referendum, Key said: “No. The position as it has essentially always been since we signed a compromise (with Labour) is that if we see good parents being criminalised for lightly smacking their children then we will actively seek to change the law,” he said. “But at this point, as the police report pointed out earlier this week, we haven’t seen that at all. “The test we have is a pretty simple one. If the law doesn’t work then we’ll change it.”
    READ FULL ARTICLE     http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4596934a24035.html

    Family First Comment :
    We are currently researching a number of cases where good parents have been criminalised or had children removed by CYF for lightly smacking or correcting their children.

    If you have been investigated or prosecuted by the police or CYF for ‘light smacking’, or know of someone who has, please email us in the strictest confidence bob@familyfirst.org.nz

    Kind regards

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Anti-smacking referendum timing (2)

    From:

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=452

    Speaking 2008 So the PM says she will get the Governor General to order that a postal poll be held next year.

    Parliament can stymie that scheme too. Section 22AB allows a majority vote in Parliament to require that the last day of postal voting be the date of the general election. The words are clear:

    “(6) [If there has been an order to conduct a postal poll, and ] —

    • (a) a general election must be held on a date that is within 12 months after the date on which the indicative referendum petition is presented to the House of Representatives (because of section 17 of the Constitution Act 1986); and

    • (b) the House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the voting period to close on the polling day for the general election.

    (7) In the circumstances described in subsection (6), the date on which the voting period closes is polling day”

    To have a postal referendum poll close on election day would be almost as good as holding it with the general election, in terms of reminding people of her arrogant interference in ordinary lives and decisions. Only downside would be the $millions wasted on the postal poll, instead of combining it.

    John Armstrong’s piece in this morning’s Herald pointed out that the whole 1984 snap election was organised in 4 weeks.

    Clark’s reasons……A simple “it will be separate from the election because $10m and the criticism are still less to me than having my short-memory voters being reminded of my contempt for their values” would scarcely gain as much attention (and now ridicule).

  • FI414-FAMILY FIRST – Please join our call

    26 June 2008 – Family Integrity #414 — FAMILY FIRST – Please join our call

    Dear Friends,
    Let me encourage you to please join this call to get some MPs to force the referendum to go though at the same time as the election in November.
    There are only 7 MPs to email. A sample letter of what to say and the email addresses are all reproduced below.
    Thanks a million.
    Regards,
    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity
    Ph: (06) 357-4399
    Fax: (06) 357-4389
    Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
    http://    www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

    Our Home….Our Castle
    25 Jun 2008

    Would you consider joining our call…

    Call for Majority of Parliament

    To Demand Election Day Referendum

    Family First Media Release 25 June 2008
    Family First NZ has written to the leaders of National, Act, NZ First, United Future and the two independent MP’s asking that they form a majority and require the anti-smacking Referendum to be held on Election Day.

    Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, a Referendum can be scheduled for polling day if the “House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.”

    “That is an ordinary 50% majority vote,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “ We are therefore calling on National, Act, NZ First, United Future and the two independent MP’s to acknowledge the voice of over 350,000 people and require that the Referendum be held at the most obvious and cost-efficient time of the upcoming election.”

    “ Any party that votes against this proposal should have the $10 million that it will cost to do a postal ballot charged against their election expenses ,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “If Sir Robert Muldoon could call a 1984 snap election just four weeks before polling day, and the-then National Government in 1999 take only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day, it proves that the Prime Minister’s claim that there is not enough time is a cynical and desparate attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet and undermine democracy.”

    If the Prime Minister goes ahead and forces the Governor-General to declare that it be held by postal voting, then the majority of Parliament can still require the voting period to close on the day of the general election – s22AB(6)(b)

    “This is second best as it is a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer money,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    JOIN OUR CALL

    Email
    john.key@parliament.govt.nz
    peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz
    rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
    winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz
    gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
    taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
    pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz

    View the Act: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0101/latest/DLM318489.html

    LETTER

    We are asking that you form a majority in the House and require the anti-smacking Referendum to be held on Election Day.

    Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, a Referendum can be scheduled for polling day if the “House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.”

    That is a simple 50% majority vote.

    We are asking you and your party to acknowledge the voice of over 350,000 people who have signed the petitions and require that the Referendum be held at the most obvious and cost-efficient time of the upcoming election.

    If the Prime Minister goes ahead and forces the Governor-General to declare that it be held by postal voting, then the majority of Parliament can still require the voting period to close on the day of the general election – s22AB(6)(b). This is second best as it is a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.

    If Sir Robert Muldoon could call a 1984 snap election just four weeks before polling day, and the Government in 1999 could take only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day, it proves that the Prime Minister’s claim that there is not enough time is an attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet and undermine democracy.

    The ability to get 390,000 signatures on a petition is a major feat in itself. Please help us uphold democracy in New Zealand.

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • John Armstrong: Election needn’t delay smacking referendum

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10518214

    Wednesday June 25, 2008 By John Armstrong

    Your Views

    Do you support another attempt at a referendum on child discipline laws?

    The Smacking Debate

    Unless the Prime Minister is planning to go to the country much earlier than everyone expects, her assertion that it is not possible to hold the anticipated citizens-initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law on election day simply does not stack up.

    Helen Clark claims there is not enough time for the referendum to run alongside the general election “just in terms of sheer organisation”.

    The real reason, of course, is Labour does not want its election campaign sullied by periodic discussion of the smacking law whose “nanny-state” connotations have proved to be so damaging to her and her party. Better to take some flak now for delaying the referendum than see the debate resurrected over the amended section 59 of the Crimes Act which removes the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

    There are good reasons for holding such plebiscites on election day. They are considerably cheaper than stand-alone ones. There is also likely to be a much higher voter turnout.

    Helen Clark might see the latter as a disadvantage, however. Although the Government is not bound by the result, a high turnout could reinforce any majority vote in favour of returning the smacking law to what was previously the case.

    So to hide the realpolitik, the Prime Minister cites practical difficulties in organising a referendum.

    But if that is the case, then it would be impossible to hold a snap election. In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, the 1984 snap election was called by Sir Robert Muldoon just four weeks before polling day. Somehow, electoral officials coped.

    In fact, the law covering citizens-initiated referendums specifically allows Parliament to shift the date of a referendum to the day of a snap election. That suggests there is sufficient time and it is not a problem.

    This year’s general election is still about four months away. The organisers of the petition seeking the smacking referendum have presented some 390,000 signatures in what was their second and final bid to force a ballot on the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    The Office of the Clerk in Parliament now has two months to check whether the petition is signed by the valid signatures of 10 per cent of registered voters.

    That equates to around 290,000 valid signatures. If that threshold is reached, the Government has another month to name the date of the referendum. There is no reason why it should take that long. In 1999, the-then National Government took only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day.

    If Labour was as quick, there would still be the best part of two months to organise referendum arrangements. Given ballot papers for the general election cannot be printed until nominations close – around three weeks before election day – it is again hard to see what the problem would be.

    There would be a problem if the election was called before the Office of the Clerk had finished validating the signatures on the petition. That is highly unlikely.

    When asked outside Labour’s caucus meeting yesterday about how the referendum might square with the election date, Helen Clark walked away. The election timetable is not a subject she is ready to traverse.

  • Key calls for smacking referendum

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/10790/key-calls-smacking-referendum?page=0%2C1

    National leader John Key says if campaigners get enough support to force a referendum on so-called smacking laws, the referendum should be held at this year’s election.

    Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday indicated a referendum was unlikely to be held at this year’s election, even if campaigners had enough signatures on their petition, because of the organisation it would take to stage a referendum.

    Campaigners yesterday handed in their second attempt at a petition to force a referendum on the issue.

    Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock handed over more than 390,000 signatures backing the call for a referendum on the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand.” The Office of the Clerk in Parliament has two months to check the petition is signed by 10 percent of registered voters or around 290,000 valid signatures.

    If the threshold is met, the Government would have one month to name a date for a referendum.

    Mr Baldock is hoping it would coincide with this year’s election, but the Government can delay any vote on the issue for up to a year.

    Asked yesterday why it could not be held alongside the election, which must be held by November 15, Miss Clark replied: “Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible.” But Mr Key today told reporters that if the campaigners have the numbers, it should be held at the election this year.

    “Well, the referendum should take place at the general election in 2008 and quite frankly the behaviour of the prime minister smacks of arrogance and wasteful behaviour,” he said.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Green MP Sue Bradford, amended section 59 of the Crimes Act to remove the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

    National supported the legislation after an amendment gave police discretion to judge whether a reported offence warranted prosecution.

    Mr Key said his position on the child discipline legislation was clear.

    “But this is about democracy, the right of people to be heard and it’s the absolute height of arrogance that the prime minister is going to use a technicality within the law to circumvent people’s rights to express their views on the issue.” It could take up to two months to check off the signatures on the petition but “ultimately it’s about putting on the ballot paper at election time a pretty straightforward question”.

  • 390,000+ signatures

    Re-Presentation to Parliament of Petition against the ‘anti-smacking/anti-correction law’. June 23rd, 2008.

    390,000+ signatures

  • FI407-PM Desparate to Shut Down Smacking Referendum

    24 June 2008 – Family Integrity #407 — PM wants to shut down referendum

    The PM has said she reckons there’s not enough time to organise a referendum to occur at the same time as the next general election. What rot. Why is she afraid of the referendum results? Because she knows she’ll be drowned and overwhelmed by opposition to this so-called “anti-smacking” law which in fact makes it a crime for parents to correct their own children.

    TAKE ACTION: Email the Prime Minister and John Key demanding that a Referendum be held at the upcoming Election

    pm@ministers.govt.nz john.key@parliament.govt.nz

    MEDIA RELEASE

    23 June 2008

    Family First NZ is shocked and angry that the Prime Minister is willing to consider spending over $10 million of taxpayers’ money on the anti-smacking Referendum to be held separately from the upcoming election rather than holding it during the upcoming election, which is the most natural timing for it.

    “Helen Clark says that Parliament had spoken on the issue with a near “unanimous mind”. What she fails to say is that both the major parties were ‘whipped’ to vote for the bill, which is highly ironic considering it is the anti-smacking bill,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The bill would have been dead and buried otherwise, as NZ’ers wanted.”

    “She also fails to hear the voice of over 390,000 signatories who oppose the law change and are demanding a Referendum, and the 80%-plus who want the law changed according to latest polls.”

    “Unless the PM is holding the election before 23 September, the perfect and most economical time to hold the Referendum is Election day in October or November, and any later timing is simply a cynical attempt to try and prevent the voice of NZ’ers being heard.”

    “It would be a sad day for democracy and fairness if that happened.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

    TAKE ACTION: Email the Prime Minister and John Key demanding that a Referendum be held at the upcoming Election
    pm@ministers.govt.nz john.key@parliament.govt.nz