Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • 1 March 2007 – Home Education Foundation – Business as Usual

    Press Release
    For Immediate distribution

    Business as Usual

    The violence at Waiuku College is only business as usual. Seasoned
    school social workers tell me that the physical, sexual and text
    bullying at schools is out of control. Drug dealing at primary schools
    is a regular fact today. Kapiti Primary School principal Graham Conner
    confessed he used to be naïve, but that the dealing on his campus was
    only the tip of the iceberg.(1) Kawerau College principal Steve Hocking
    said, “Any secondary school that reckons they don’t have a drug problem
    is probably burying its head in the sand.”(2) Post Primary Teachers
    Association president Jen McCutcheon said “There are commonly three,
    four or five kids who are severely disruptive in every class.”(3)

    Compulsory schooling has so alienated parents from their own children
    and from their parenting responsibilities, that we now regularly hear
    parents rejoicing to have their own children off their hands and back in
    school. Dr John Clark at Massey University says the primary reason we
    have schooling institutions is as a baby sitting service.(4) Massey’s
    past Vice-Chancellor, Sir Neil Waters, said schools exist to socialise
    children, “otherwise it wouldn’t take so long. You don’t need 15 years
    to educate somebody but you need 15 years to socialise somebody.”(5)

    The late Professor Graham Nuthall of Canterbury University said,
    “[S]tudent learning is not the focus of what goes on in schools….. Put
    simply, the education system is a fraud.”(6) Phillip Capper, past
    president of the PPTA, said, “What I would like to see in the political
    debate about education is a recognition that public education is an
    exercise in social engineering by definition.”(7) So if school
    administrators and the MoE want to blame parents or society in general
    for the violence on campus, remember that it was the schools that
    engineered the parents and society to be the way they are!

    The Ministry of Social Development says on its website
     http://tinyurl.com/arhgs
         that the proportion of New Zealander’s aged
    16-65, almost all of whom passed through NZ state schools, who do not
    have the literacy skills in English at a suitable minimum for coping
    with the demands of everyday life and work in a complex, advanced
    society, is a whopping 46 per cent!

    This is gross failure by any standard. But this is the New Zealand state
    school system. This is in spite of the teachers in the system, most of
    whom are thoroughly devoted to the children, some of whom are absolutely
    brilliant, all of whom are being asked to do the impossible. Even so,
    there’s no reason to abandon our children to such institutions. We’ve
    kept all eight of ours at home over the last 26 year and educated them
    ourselves. With the one-to-one tutoring of homeschooling, you can hardly
    fail.

    Notes:
    1.Dominion, 24 June 2002, “Primary school drug use tip of iceberg”,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1103,1243838a11,FF.html
         2.Stuff, 14 May 2002, “All schools have drug problems – principal”,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1103,1201748a1801,FF.html
         3.Dominion, 21 May 2002, “Five disruptive kids a class, say teachers”,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1103,1203494a1701,FF.html
         4.Dr John Clark, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Education, Department
    of Policy Studies in Education, Massey University, from his course notes
    for Understanding Education in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 1997.

    5.LEARN Magazine, Issue 10, November 1996, p. 8, Sir Neil Waters, Past
    Vice-Chancellor of Massey University, NZ Qualifications Authority Board
    Chairman.

    6. Full quote: One of our major findings, based on many years of
    research in many classrooms, is that student learning is not the focus
    of what goes on in schools. We found that most teachers, most of the
    time, do not know what their students are learning or not learning. We
    give awards to our best teachers without paying any attention to what
    their students learn. The Education Review Office evaluates the
    effectiveness of schools without obtaining any direct evidence about
    student learning. The Qualifications Authority accredits courses and
    institutions without paying any attention to whether students in those
    courses or institutions are learning anything or not. The Ministry of
    Education carries out “network reviews” of schools (amalgamating smaller
    schools) without any evidence about whether the changes will affect
    student learning. Put simply, the education system is a fraud. –
    Professor Emeritus Graham Nuthall, University of Canterbury, New
    Zealand, March 2004.

    7.Dominion Sunday Times, 14 October 1990.

    Craig & Barbara Smith
    National Directors
    Home Education Foundation
    PO Box 9064
    Palmerston North
    New Zealand
    Ph. +64 6 357-4399
    Fax +64 6 357-4389
    mail@hef.org.nz
    www.hef.org.nz

    Serving, promoting, defending, publishing and lobbying for Christian and
    secular home educators in NZ and overseas since 1986.

  • 28 February 2007 Family Integrity – Worse than threat of arrest

    28 February 2007 Family Integrity – Worse than threat of arrest

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00391.htm
         Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 4:58 pm
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    Worse than threat of arrest

    Sue Bradford is probably right when she says Police will not charge parents every time they smack their child or use any other form of reasonable force to correct children. The real threat in her Bill to subvert parental authority is far worse: CYFS will come threatening to take the children away. Nothing could be more traumatic to a child, especially since the Children, Young Persons and the Families Act, Section 39, gives a single social worker, operating on her own, authority to use whatever force in needed to enter private homes and tear children from the mother’s arms. The social worker doesn’t need proof that abuse has taken place; she only needs to suspect that “ill-treatment” is “likely” to happen. And CYFS is not accountable if she makes a mistake.

    Section (2) of Bradford’s Bill makes the correction of children a criminal offence if one uses any hint of force whatsoever: a gesture, a threat to withdraw privileges, intimidation, an appeal to conscience or any kind of physical force. A core responsibility of parenting, the correction of their children, is being thoroughly subverted.

    Section (1)(c) of Bradford’s Bill lets a parent slap a hand over a child’s mouth if he is about to repeat an offensive swear word. But if the parent says, “Don’t do it again, or you’ll be off to bed without dessert,” the parent has just committed criminal assault, worth as much as two years in jail. If there is uncertainty whether the parent’s actions were corrective or merely preventative, Section (3) of the Bill says the corrective interpretation must prevail, putting parents outside the law. Bradford’s Bill appears to be the product of a fevered mind, corrupted by power, attempting to force its philosophy of child autonomy and minimal parental authority and maximum state powers of intervention upon us all in order to advance the utopia of a radical feminist agenda where so-called “patriarchal structures” such as the nuclear family are completely destroyed or neutralised.

  • 28 February 2007 – Family First – Child Abuse Up 14% despite Swedish Smacking Ban

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm

    Child Abuse Up 14% despite Swedish Smacking Ban
    Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 12:04 pm
    Press Release: Family First
    MEDIA RELEASE

    28 February 2007

    14% Increase in Child Abuse despite Swedish Smacking Ban

    Latest figures from Sweden reveal that more and more children are being abused in Sweden.

    According to The Swedish Daily, there has been a 14% increase in child abuse cases in 2006 compared with 2005 figures.

    This backs up earlier research showing that child abuse increased 489% in the 13 years following a ban on smacking, and assaults by minors against minors increased 672%.

    In a 2000 Swedish Government report, it said “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years”

    And in the European Crime and Safety Safety Report commissioned by the UN and European Commission released two weeks ago, Sweden had one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in the EU.

    Sweden’s Children’s Ombudsman Lena Nyberg said last year “In Sweden, many people believe that children have not been subjected to violence since the ban on corporal punishment was introduced, but this is not true.”

    “The conclusion from Sweden’s experience is quite clear,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Bans on smacking do not affect rates of child abuse –in fact the evidence shows that it does more harm than good.”

    “And it would be in the best interests of kiwi families for MP’s to consider the overwhelming evidence of the failures of smacking bans to lower child abuse – before they vote for Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ bill,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Source:
    New child abuse commission after Bobby death
    http://www.thelocal.se/3734/20060505/
    Child abuse increase in Sweden

    tp://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=768537&lid=senasteNytt_2754

  • 28 February 2007 Remove signs, protester told Smack setback

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/3977221a6502.html
         Remove signs, protester told Smack setback
    By LEE MATTHEWS – Manawatu Standard | Wednesday, 28 February 2007

    JONATHAN CAMERON/Manawatu Standard

    (To see photo please go to link above)
    UPSETTING SIGNS: Sanson father Wayne Fergusson with his signs protesting the “deluded” campaign by list MP Sue Bradford to make smacking of children illegal. The Manawatu District Council has told Mr Fergusson to take some of the signs down because they are too close to a State highway and might distract drivers.

    Sanson father-of-two Wayne Fergusson wants the right to smack his children when they are naughty.

    He feels so strongly that list MP Sue Bradford has got it wrong with her proposed legislation to make smacking illegal that he has built large protest signs on the front lawn of his State Highway 1 Sanson home.

    The signs urge people to reject Ms Bradford’s bill, and to not criminalise good parents. They publicise the Family First group, which also opposes the legislation.

    “I’ve had people pulling up and coming in and signing the Family First petition. Somebody gave me some vegies the other day as well,” Mr Fergusson said.

    He wants people to think through the proposed legislation, and do something to stop it. He says there is a world of difference between parents smacking children with reasonable force for discipline, and parents and other people who hurt, maim and kill children.

    “We have totally unacceptable rates of violence against children . . . (but) the two issues are separate.

    “This is deluded. It’s going to make good parents into criminals. It’s just going to feed that whole family court abuse industry, lawyers and judges.”

    He said he smacked his children – two sons, aged three and seven – when they deserved it, just as his own father had smacked him.

    Meanwhile, the signs have upset the Manawatu District Council, which has asked Mr Fergusson to remove the ones closest to the road.

    Council spokesman Bob Williams said it was a road safety issue, and had nothing to do with the protest. There were rules about the size and siting of roadside signs because they could distract drivers.

    The council had sent Mr Fergusson a pamphlet explaining the rules.

  • 27 February 2007 – Family Integrity Release – Family Integrity and the Importance of Discipline

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00358.htm

    Family Integrity and the Importance of Discipline
    Tuesday, 27 February 2007, 11:51 am
    Press Release: Family Integrity
    Press Release
    For Immediate Distribution

    My wife and I understand discipline. We just celebrated 28 years of monogamous marriage in which we committed ourselves to each other til death do us part. During this time we’ve had 4 children and adopted 4 others. None of these children have ever been to school: we teach them ourselves at home.

    All are committed to lives of sobriety, chastity, hard work, respect and productivity. None have ever been on the dole, in jail, slept around, smoked dope, dropped drugs or gone nightclubbing. The 4 oldest have played Representative sport in NZ and travelled and worked overseas.

    Among them is a Legal Executive, a Marketing Director for a multi-million dollar book seller in the USA, an RNZAF Avionics Technician and a Highland Dancing instructor. The 5th one, aged 14, almost has enough flying hours to go solo. And even though our single income (working for a charitable trust) has been static at $22,500 for the past nine years, our house, appliances, furniture and all three vehicles are free-hold and we’ve all travelled overseas several times. Discipline makes all these things possible.

    Discipline, training and correction are core parental responsibilities. That includes smacking disobedient and rebellious children, to bring them back into line. Please note: I said smacking, not hitting. The English language has these different words because they mean different things and carry significantly different baggage.

    Why do MPs want to prohibit good parents from effectively correcting their children? Why do they want to criminalise smacking because intellectually or ideologically they cannot tell the difference between smacking and hitting? There are hundreds of parents who will not stop smacking if this ridiculous bill passes, just as a recent TVNZ poll demonstrated. Passing this Bill will alienate, threaten and criminalise the best allies any Government could ever have in the pursuit of a peaceful, orderly society: responsible, hands-on parents.

    Craig Smith National Director Family Integrity

  • 22 February 2007 – 23 February 2007

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00336.htm
    Marc Alexander – Smacking away parental rights

    Friday, 23 February 2007, 4:54 pm
    Press Release: Marc Alexander

    Marc My Words…
    23 February 2007

    Political comment
    By Marc Alexander
    Smacking away parental rights

    Seems to me we’ve let the lunatics have free reign in parliament. Sue Bradford’s private members bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act was backed by Labour, the rest of the Greens, the leader of the so-called Progressives and United last Wednesday. Despite the rhetoric and hot-air on the issue regarding being opposed to child abuse, no-one should be misled: the bill, if passed, cuts to the heart of the role of parenting. This is the nanny state intruding on the rights of parents. Bradford, Clark et al desperately want to apply this kind of ‘feel good’ interventionist balm on the canker of child abuse as a way to ‘prove’ that they’re doing something about it.

    Does anyone really think that doing away with parental rights to determine the appropriateness of discipline will have any effect on our child abuse rates? This is nothing less than bringing in the state to intercede and disrupt the family relationships. It is an attack on ‘family’.

    Now…the piece of legislation (Crimes Act 1961) at the heart of the debate is an example of simplicity and elegance. It reads:

    (1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

    (2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

    How hard is it to understand the word reasonable? By definition it precludes abuse. Tinkering and word-smithing will increase the likelihood of ambiguity not diminish it. Once we go down the track of saying what implement, force or purpose may be applied, we’ve already lost the plot by trying to encapsulate a contingency for what constitutes reasonable. In a very real way, we destroy rather than enhance its meaning.

    To yank a child from the road when in danger from traffic is using reasonable force. Similarly it can also apply if your child is self-harming and physical restraint is needed. There are many situations where not to apply reasonable force might itself constitute abuse.

    In any case, the repeal of section 59 will criminalise parents and turn their children, neighbours and school teachers into government ‘spies’ as the frontline to ensure compliance. Parents will risk prosecution, fines or a prison sentence. Meanwhile the child would be removed from the home and placed in state care. That may be a scarier prospect than even CYF’s may care to admit. On June 17, 2002 the Dominion ran a report showing that in the previous three years more than 150 children had been removed from State foster parents after being physically, sexually or emotionally abused by them. Details issued by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services under the Official Information Act show that between July 1999 and June 2000, 61 children were removed from their foster parents’care after suffering substantiated instances of abuse. These are kids who were removed from their original families on the premise that they would be safer in State care!

    Fifty-two children were removed from foster care between July 2000 and June 2001, and 45 between July 2001 and March 2002. That constitutes a rate of abuse of children under 17 twice the rate occurring in the general population. Those who claim that no police would prosecute a clearly sensible application of the law (as a result of the repeal of section 59), miss the point – some over-zealous 24 year old idealistic social worker with the best of intentions would!

    In many cases the biggest abuse of our children is not committed by parents but by the state.

    Sadly, we have a tragic record of child abuse in this country: ten year old Craig Manukau was kicked to death, Delcelia Witika, Anaru Rogers, James Whakaruru, and little Lillybing of Carterton all died at the hands of their caregivers. Another toddler, two-year-old Sade Trembath, was beaten so badly by her grandmother that she has permanent brain damage. Let’s not forget the murder charge laid against Hamilton foster father Michael Waterhouse for the death of three year old Huntly boy, Tamati Pokia. The shameful roll call goes on.

    Before we get carried away…let’s pause and reflect that in none of these instances was there even a faint hint of reasonableness: these were all instances of appalling abuse. How many truly believe that a change to section 59 would have saved any of them?

    How we deal with child abuse in New Zealand has nothing to do with section 59, but everything to do with a disparity between parental responsibility and abuse of children. To criminalise the majority of parents in order to deal with a proportionately small group of truly ‘evil parents’ is patently absurd.

    If we want parents to be held responsible for how their kids turn out, why are we taking away the means by which some parents can parent? If it is child abuse we want to target, then let’s stop wasting time attacking good parents and do more to prevent abuse happening in the first place. Let’s start treating those parents as the criminals they surely are, with meaningful sentences.

    Child abuse is already illegal and isn’t protected by section 59 anyway. If the likes of Sue Bradford really did want to do something about child abuse then lets ‘up’ the penalties. Why not provide meaningful sentences and a term of natural life for the very worst offenders?

    The Bradford Bill is the latest in a prolonged attack against our kids. The simple truth is that government no longer trusts the people. Under Labour, and the influence of the Greens, they have enacted legislation that strips the primacy of family in society – replacing it with itself. By blinding us with an orgy of diversity-based rights, the last bastion of inter-generational strength, the family, is being unceremoniously dumped from centre-stage. The rights of children to a mother and father, parental discipline tempered within an environment of love, compassion, and commitment is close to being a thing of the past. The institution of family is slowly being eroded and replaced by an accommodation of expressly defined relationships sanctioned by the state.

    Ever since they abandoned all the other disciplinary measures my forbears and I grew up with (strapping, caning etc) I note how the violent crime rate has exploded. How much more will the Bradford restrictions on parental discipline exacerbate that I wonder?

    When governments start debating what reasonable means, when they second-guess the care provided by good parents, and confuse parental responsibility with child abuse, it’s clear they deserve to lose the confidence of those they purport to represent. They need to go.


    22 February 2007 – Larry Baldock/Sheryl Savill – Petitions on Smacking, Families launched – Maxim In

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00312.htm

    Petitions on Smacking, Families launched
    Thursday, 22 February 2007, 2:15 pm
    Press Release: Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill
    Press release embargoed until 1.30pm Thursday 22nd February, 2007

    Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill will hold a press conference at the Kingsgate Hotel Gilbert room, 92 Gladstone Rd, Parnell at 1.30pm Thursday 22nd Feb to officially launch two Citizens initiated Referendum petitions which will ask the following questions;

    1.) “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” proposed by Sheryl Savill

    2.) “Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ” proposed by Larry Baldock.

    With the passing of Sue Bradford’s anti smacking, anti correction bill through another stage in parliament last night, it is time for all New Zealander’s to have an opportunity to have their opinion heard in a concrete and constructive way.

    Our purpose in promoting this initiative is at least threefold.

    Firstly, by obtaining at least 300,000 signatures on both petitions in the next few months as the bill is debated in parliament, we can send a strong signal to all MP’s about how seriously concerned many good New Zealand parents feel about the possibility of being criminalised if the bill is passed in its current form.

    Secondly if parliament refuses to listen to the overwhelming majority of us who have indicated in survey after survey that we do not support the banning of smacking, then the Petition will enable our dissent to be clearly counted in a formal referendum at the next election.

    Finally through the second petition we hope to channel the enormous public energy being generated by this debate into a positive and constructive message to government that the majority of New Zealanders will support sensible and constructive efforts to address our unacceptable statistics in regard to our children and young people.

    We reject absolutely the ill conceived notion that the proposed ban on smacking will do anything to stop child abuse. But we must not simply become aroused in our opposition to legislation and then sink back into life as normal, without identifying and supporting alternative solutions. Once the initial step of collecting the required number of signatures is completed, we will be able to engage in a wide discussion about what the Government could and should do, to help in addressing the reality that for too many of our children in this country the quality of their family life is unacceptable.

    Petition forms can be obtained by emailing CIRPetition[at]xtra.co.nz
    Or writing to CIR Petition P.O.Box 9228, Greerton Tauranga.

    ENDS


    Maxim Institute

    http://www.maxim.org.nz

    Real Issues

    No. 241 | 22 February 2007

    Two votes down, one to go

    After heated debate last night, Parliament advanced the so-called “anti-smacking” Bill another stage. The Bill passed its second reading by 70-51, with Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party all voting in favour of the Bill. They were joined by United Future Leader Peter Dunne, three New Zealand First MPs and six National MPs.

    The Bill will now be set down for what is known as the “Committee of the whole House” stage, where any MP can suggest an amendment to it as a precursor to the third and final reading. During this stage, National MP Chester Borrows will propose an amendment which aims to define reasonable force, while allowing parents to use physical force for the purposes of correction.

    This amendment is a sensible solution to a complicated and technical issue and if the amendment has the support of 61 or more MPs it will replace the original Bill. However, sponsor of the original Bill, Green MP Sue Bradford, has threatened to abandon her Bill altogether if the amendment passes, because retaining a right of physical discipline “cuts across the intent of the Bill”, and she has committed to fighting the amendment “tooth and nail”.

    Both supporters and opponents of the Bill agree that child abuse is patently abhorrent. New Zealand has a tragically high rate of child abuse and something must be done to reduce it. However, it is doubtful whether the Bill would make a difference in this regard, and it would have significant negative consequences, including the criminalising of ordinary parents for using mild physical discipline such as a light smack.

    In the debate last night, Ms Bradford insisted that her Bill would not criminalise parents. While this might be her intention, there can be no doubt that the Bill would result in mild discipline falling within the definition of “assault”, thus exposing parents to the risk of criminal prosecution. This is not something good and loving parents should ever have to fear. A great majority of Kiwi parents are decent and competent and should be entrusted with the authority and the responsibility to raise, and discipline, their children.

    With the third reading expected as early as three weeks from now, Parliament will have to decide whether to enact an unworkable law that criminalises parents, or whether to accept a reasonable compromise. Hopefully, commonsense will win the day.

    See how your MP voted at the second reading:

    http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=849

    Read an Issue Snapshot on the repeal of section 59:

    http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=834

    Read Chester Borrows’ proposed amendment:

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/6AEC3072-A81A-414E-9D93-AE9950265928/50965/DBHOH_SOP_987_4686.pdf

    Write to the editor:

    http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor

  • 22 February 2007 – United Future – Anti-smacking bill demands CYF complaints authority

    Media statement – United Future
    For immediate release
    Thursday, 22 February 2007

    Anti-smacking bill demands CYF complaints authority

    United Future deputy leader Judy Turner is warning that Child, Youth and
    Family staff will face a substantial increase in notifications following
    the section 59 repeal Bill passing its second reading.

    “This Bill will increase the workload for CYF social workers who are
    already drowning in their workloads,” warns Mrs Turner.

    “There is a real risk that attention to quality and sound decisions may
    at times be inevitably sacrificed in an attempt to reduce the number of
    unallocated cases.

    “This likelihood makes a complaints authority even more essential, as it
    will allow cases to be reviewed and any errors or bad judgment calls to be
    put right.

    “I know many parents are scared they could face losing their children if
    an over-zealous neighbour phones CYF to notify that they saw them smack
    their child over the fence.

    “An independent complaints authority would at least give New Zealand
    parents an avenue for appeal if the unthinkable were to happen to their
    family – mistakes and bad judgement calls do happen.”

    Hon Ruth Dyson announced in the House last Thursday that, “Following the
    advocacy and hard work undertaken by (Judy Turner), I have requested my
    officials to investigate a complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family
    as in my view the member has proven that it would have merit,”

    “I’m delighted by this undertaking, but such an authority has more merit
    in light of the anti-smacking Bill passing its second reading – it’s an
    absolute necessity,” insists Mrs Turner.

    Ends
    Contact: Judy Turner
    04 4706992
    021 309803

  • 21 February 2007 – Press Release – Family Integrity / Press Release – Lindsay Mitchell/FAMILY FIRST

    Family Integrity – Press Release – Family Integrity Calls For Dumping Of Bill http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00281.htm

    Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 10:25 am
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    Press Release For Immediate Distribution

    With the current Section 59 in place, correction of children is the only acceptable excuse for using force with children. But Green MP Sue Bradford now says that correction of children is the one thing she wants to see specifically forbidden. She is happy to justify parents using reasonable force to prevent bad behaviour, but not to correct it.

    The repeal lobby’s rhetoric has tried to make us believe it was the “reasonable force” they wanted to ban. Their real agenda has been revealed in the Select Committee’s amended version of Section 59 which Bradford help to write. It is the correction of children they want to ban, not the use of reasonable force. In their minds parents may compel children to stop behaving in a certain way, but they must not compel children to behave in a certain way.

    The repeal lobby’s re-write of Section 59 tolerates parents using reasonable force to prevent their children from conforming to harmful, criminal, offensive and disruptive behaviours. But they will not tolerate parents using reasonable force to ensure their children conform to obedient, honest, righteous and respectful behaviours. An agenda that is more anti-parent, anti-family, in fact, one that is more foolish, illogical, non-sensical and counter to all that makes for a peaceful and orderly society would be hard to imagine.

    Dump this ridiculous Bill to repeal Section 59 once and for all.

    Ends


    Lindsay Mitchell – Press Release – Removal of S59 Gross Failure to Tackle Child Abuse

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00293.htm

    Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 3:56 pm
    Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
    Media Release

    Removal of S59 a Gross Failure to Tackle Child Abuse
    Wednesday, February 21, 2007

    “The removal of section 59 is covering up a gross failure to tackle the causes of child abuse,” Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator said today.

    “The first evidence I can find of government agencies acknowledging child abuse is from 1967. Child Welfare conducted a survey of the 210 confirmed cases that year. What they found was a strong association between illegitimacy and child abuse. Maori children were 6 times more likely to be victims.”

    “That’s forty years ago and policy makers are still refusing to face this reality, wringing hands over unpartnered, teenage birth and claiming all these girls need is more support in bringing up their babies. The focus of that support has largely been financial thereby inadvertently exacerbating the problem. Pay girls to have and keep babies and that is what they will do, whether or not they are emotionally capable of parenting them.”

    “It snuck below the radar last week that the teenage birth rate had risen again. It has climbed for four consecutive years. The Maori rate is more than four times higher than NZ European.”

    “Rather than fiddling with section 59 we should be stopping welfare to teenagers, blitzing contraception use and encouraging adoption. Do we have any politicians brave enough to act on these ideas?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Excellent press release!

    Removal of Section 59 will not stop child abuse. Instead, children and
    their parents and families will be open to administrative, physical and mental
    abuse. There are all too many tens of thousands of cases here in Sweden,
    that boasts to be the first country in the world to abolish smacking
    children.

    Of course, it is absolutly terrible that some children are beaten to
    death, stabbed or shot by their parents or step-parents but that doesn’t give
    parliament the right to forbid parents to smack their children when
    words and admonition are ineffective to correct bad or even criminal
    behaviour.

    Children are also beaten to death, stabbed or shot by their foster
    parents.

    But then, they are in the “protective custody of the state” so those
    cases are silenced.

    The percentage of abused or rather ill-treated children is very small
    compared to the percentage of children who never see the light of day
    because the law permits their parents and medical staff to kill them
    before they are born.

    The child protection lobby usually try to brush off any references to
    abortion statistics, but only 50 years ago two European women – the
    mother and her abortionist – were sentenced to death because they caused the
    death of an unborn child. WW2 was raging at the same time, killing millions of
    people.

    There is a total lacking of a sense of proportions. In Sweden there is a
    saying “One sifts mosquitos, but swallow camels”.

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson


    Family First – Press Release – Why We Oppose Anti-Smacking Bill

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00296.htm

    7 More Good Reasons Why We Oppose Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill

    From the group that’s “whipping up hysteria” according to Sue Bradford – because we’re presenting the Facts!!

    1. No decent research shows smack by a loving parent breeds violence
    Otago University study 2006 – children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.

    Fergusson and Lynskey (Christchurch School of Medicine) – found no difference between no smacking and moderate physical punishment “ It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences”

    2. UNICEF reports prove there is no link between smacking and child abuse
    2003 UNICEF report on maltreatment deaths.
    Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow smacking !

    Austria banned smacking in 1989 – is the 5th highest for child abuse death rates

    2007 Report released last week : “the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is associated with poverty, single-parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, weak family ties, and parental drug or alcohol abuse.”

    The safest country for children is Netherlands – hasn’t banned smacking . Of the 10 top countries, 6 haven’t banned smacking.

    The 2006 CYF report “Children at Increased Risk of Death from Maltreatment and Strategies for Prevention”
    identified the factors which signaled greater risk for children including poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and family breakdown. Statistics also showed that children living in households with an adult unrelated to them were almost 50 times as likely to die of an inflicted injury as those living with two biological parents!

    Example: Just one of the real causes – Substance Abuse
    UNICEF report 2003 – Child welfare professionals – 80% said “substance abuse causes or contributes to at least half of all cases of child maltreatment”
    85% of States in US report substance abuse and poverty leading problems in families reported for abuse
    Substance abuse triples risk for child maltreatment

    3. Sweden experience is a warning to us
    Child abuse increased 489% in 13 years following ban – Assaults by kids against kids increased 672%
    2000 Swedish Govt report – “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years”
    Sweden’s Foster Care rate is double NZ’s – twice as many kids being removed from their families
    European Crime and Safety Safety – UN, Euro Commission – published this month – Sweden has one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in EU

    Lies…..
    Around one child a month dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver in New Zealand. In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years. – Document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH last year
    “The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years” – Sue Bradford on TVNZ’s Close Up 19 July 2006
    • “Dr Kiro says people need to realise since Sweden banned physical punishment in 1976, only four children died in the following 20 years”
    Children’s Commissioner speaks out against culture of violence – Press Release – Dr Cindy Kiro – 03/11/2004

    The Truth
    Morgan Johansson, Swedish public health minister, said (2006)
    “Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years,”

    4. Polls
    Averaged out, polls show that 80% of us want to keep the status quo. Politicians need to listen to the people.

    5. Police won’t prosecute
    Domestic Violence Policy currently being enforced by Police strongly encourages arrest at the time and denies Police Diversion except where authorised by the District Commander. Diversions are rarely given for domestic violence matters. The Police Association admitted today (21 Feb) that they will have to investigate any complaint.

    As noted by Cabinet, anyone may bring a prosecution for breach of criminal law e.g. lobby group could bring private prosecution against smack or removal to ‘time out’ – not determined by Police

    6. Are the Greens serious about stopping child abuse?
    2003: P (Methamphetamine) reclassified as a Class A drug – only the Greens opposed
    2006: Opposed an increase to the Drinking Age
    2005: Intentional Possession of Child Pornography (the worst of child abuse) –Only the Greens opposed the maximum penalty being 5 years – wanted it lower at 2 years
    2007: Want to decriminalise Marijuana
    SOFT ON THE REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE YET THEY WANT TO CRIMINALISE PARENTS WHO GIVE THEIR KIDS A SMACK

    7. Smacking isn’t violence – it’s correction
    Children are already protected from violence and assault through the Crimes Act
    Smacking is in harmony with nature – pain teaches e.g a child teases a dog, they get a dog bite – a child touches the hot element, they get burnt – they take their hands off the handles of the bike – they crash!
    Does this teach a child to be a violent person? NO!
    A Reasonable smack from loving parent is great teaching tool

  • 20 February 2007

    FAMILYFIRST
    MEDIA RELEASE
    20 FEBRUARY 2007

    Letter urges Parliament to Support Parents – not Criminalise Them

    Hundreds of kiwi parents and grandparents urge politicians to retain section 59 Crimes Act

    Over 1200 NZ’ers, including All Black greats Michael Jones, Inga Tuigamala and Eroni Clarke, ex Silver Fern Linda Vagana, Broadcaster Simon Barnett, Oceania Player of the Century Wynton Rufer and hundreds of parents and grandparents have sent an Open Letter (see below) to the Prime Minister and all MP’s calling on them to reject Green MP Sue Bradford’s ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill and the ‘Anti-Correction’ Amendments recommended by the Select Committee.

    The Signatories include Social Workers, School Principals, Teachers, Early Childhood Educators, Police Officers, Doctors, Counsellors, Youthworkers, and representatives of over 50 pro-family organizations. Many teenagers have also put their signature to the letter, as have senior managers and business owners – the majority of signatories are also parents and grandparents.

    “Most of these people are not child development experts and have not adopted moral supremacy and appointed themselves as the experts on parenting and the well-being of children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First who co-ordinated the letter. “They are simply the mums and dads of this country who on a daily basis are striving to raise law-abiding children who will make a positive contribution to this country. They deserve to be applauded – not threatened with criminalisation because so-called experts don’t agree with how they parent.”

    Mr McCoskrie says that the organisers were blown away by the overwhelming support for the Letter. They originally hoped to get 150-200 signatures but in the end had to close the Register two weeks early.

    “Our message is that child abuse is a major problem in NZ but we must tackle the real causes – family breakdown, dysfunction and substance abuse, rather than penalising and exposing to criminalisation good parents for simply giving their children appropriate care, correction and loving discipline.”

    Mr McCoskrie says there is not a single piece of reputable research which proves that appropriate smacking leads to abuse or results in violent and dysfunctional children – in fact the research shows the opposite.

    “Politicians will also be very aware that poll after poll after poll, both in NZ and in Australia and England, support the retention of section 59 (average of 80% support). This is because NZ’ers understand that parental discipline in the form of a smack is totally different to child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For more information contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
    email. bob@familyfirst.org.nz | www.familyfirst.org.nz

    OPEN LETTER

    To: Rt Hon Helen Clark – Prime Minister
    Leaders of All Political Parties in Parliament
    and Members of Parliament

    20 February 2007

    Dear Prime Minister, Parliamentary Leaders and Members:

    We oppose child abuse in all its forms. We acknowledge that New Zealand has a terrible problem with child abuse, and that the law on parental discipline could be amended to prevent any questionable cases.

    We believe the answer to the prevalence of child abuse in New Zealand includes:

    education on different options and alternatives for parenting and discipline;
    tackling significant contributing factors such as family breakdown, substance abuse and poverty;

    introducing policies which strengthen marriage, families and parental responsibility.

    But we call on all political parties to reject Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, and the recommendations put forward by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.

    The Bill, and the Select Committee amendments, will not promote the interests of children or enable parents to fulfil their responsibilities, for a number of reasons:

    1. If the Bill is passed, good parents will be treated as criminals under the law. The police have confirmed that smacking a child would be assault. They will have to investigate any complaint made against a parent for smacking or even picking up a child to remove them to ‘time out’ against their wishes. This will immediately place a family under enormous pressure. While some say parents won’t be prosecuted, the police have to enforce the law, regardless of what politicians say.

    “The central issue is that people need to know what they are allowed to do and what they’re not allowed to do, and they shouldn’t be overshadowed by the fear of their conduct being regarded as criminal and therefore subject to some bureaucrat or police officer making some decision further down the track that they’ve done something wrong and can be prosecuted … The behaviour of parents will be criminalised and people are brought into an area of uncertainty where they are being told that what you are doing is wrong but we’re not going to prosecute you because you’re acting reasonably” Grant Illingworth QC – National Radio interview 21 November 2006

    2. Simply banning smacking will not stop child abuse. In 2003, a UNICEF report identified poverty, stress and family breakdown – along with drug and alcohol abuse – as the factors most closely and consistently associated with child abuse and neglect.

    Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow parents to use reasonable discipline such as smacking. The evidence clearly shows that there are far greater factors in the prevalence of child abuse that need to be urgently tackled and we call on politicians to address these factors.

    3. Child abuse is already illegal in New Zealand. The law already says that child abusers have committed a crime, and the full weight of the existing law should be used to bring a full and just punishment.

    4. Reasonable smacking does not damage children or teach them to be violent. In fact, a recent Otago University study found that children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.

    5. Kiwis know the difference between smacking and child abuse and should be given credit for this. Averaged out, polls show that 80% of us want to keep the status quo.

    In conclusion, repeal of section 59 or prohibiting reasonable correction (as recommended by the Select Committee) will place good parents at risk by criminalising them simply for giving their children appropriate care, correction and loving discipline, to the detriment of those children.

    This is an unacceptable burden to place on New Zealand families.

    We commend MPs for their desire to deal with our abhorrent rates of child abuse.

    We wish to work with you and other New Zealanders to stop child abuse.

    For the sake of our families and our country, please do not penalise good parents doing a great job.

    (Family Integrity has seen the list of signatories to this letter).