Family Integrity

Category: CIR Petition

  • Key mulling smacking options


    http://tvnz.co.nz/one-news/key-mulling-smacking-options-2937313/video

    PM John Key addresses the 73rd National Party Annual Conference in Christchurch, New Zealand (Source: NZPA)

    Key mulling smacking options (2:48

  • The anti-smacking law: Only a law change is morally acceptable

    NZ Prime Minister John Key is saying that he takes the referendum outcome seriously, and that he wants to reassure parents that they will not be investigated or prosecuted just for smacking a child. See the story here.

    Police and Child Youth and Family officials will be warned to not prosecute parents for lightly smacking their children.

    Prime Minister John Key told the Sunday Star-Times in Sydney yesterday he was planning to introduce “increased safeguards” to prevent parents who gave their children “minor” or “inconsequential” smacks from being either investigated or prosecuted.

    The PM claims that he actually supports the view of those who voted no.

    Mr Key also told TVNZ’s Q&A programme this morning that he agreed with the result. “I agree and support their view there, I think it would be totally inappropriate for a New Zealand parent to be prosecuted for lightly smacking a child.

    Here’s the problem: Their (our) view is that a smack as part of good aprental correction should not be a criminal offence. Unless the law is changed, it will continue to be a criminal offence. To say that it will remain a criminal offence, but police will be advised not to prosecute these criminals, is not to share our view at all.

    Criminals should be prosecuted. If a reasonable smack (not a punch, a whipping, a “good hiding,” etc) as part of normal correction should never be prosecuted, then it should not be a crime in law, which it currently is.

    Stop being half hearted, Mr Key. If you share our view, as you claim to, that a smack should not be a crime, then seek a law change so that a smack is not a crime. It’s not complicated. We’re waiting.

    Leave comments here

    Write to John Key and the Cabinet

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/the-message-is-clear-decriminalise-light-smacking/

    and

    http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/referendumsection-59-the-way-forward/

  • The Message is Clear…Decriminalise Light Smacking

    The Message is Clear…


    Decriminalise


    Light Smacking


    WOULD YOU CONSIDER TAKING 2 MINUTES TO SEND AN IMPORTANT EMAIL?

    Tomorrow morning, and in response to the whopping 88% who voted NO in the Referendum, John Key will be going to Cabinet to recommend ‘increased safeguards’, guidelines and ‘a level of comfort’ for parents under the anti-smacking law. But the Referendum wasn’t about ‘recommendations’, ‘guidelines’ or ‘comfort’ – it was about a law change .

    As the law stands, a light smack is a criminal offence subject to whether the police agree it was ‘inconsequential’ and then whether CYF agree that you’re not an abusive parent (only after an investigation that may require your children to be removed temporarily). We’ve documented many cases where this interpretation would be completely different to what you and I would think ( see here).

    PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO EMAIL THE MEMBERS OF CABINET

    Almost all of these Ministers were in Opposition when the law was passed and actively lobbyed against the law change until they were ‘whipped’ to support the compromise – some even helped collect signatures and promoted the need for a Referendum! It’s not about John Key’s view – it’s about Cabinet listening to the almost 90% who voted NO in the Referendum

    Here’s the emails…
    john.key@parliament.govt.nz ; bill.english@parliament.govt.nz ; gerry.brownlee@parliament.govt.nz ; simon.power@parliament.govt.nz ; tony.ryall@parliament.govt.nz ; nick.smith@parliament.govt.nz ; judith.collins@parliament.govt.nz ; anne.tolley@parliament.govt.nz ; christopher.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz ; david.carter@parliament.govt.nz ; murray.mccully@parliament.govt.nz ; tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz ; wayne.mapp@parliament.govt.nz ; steven.joyce@parliament.govt.nz ; georgina.teheuheu@parliament.govt.nz ; paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz ; phil.heatley@parliament.govt.nz ; pansy.wong@parliament.govt.nz ; jonathan.coleman@parliament.govt.nz ; kate.wilkinson@parliament.govt.nz ;  mail@hef.org.nz; admin@familyfirst.org.nz
    (we’ve added our email address simply so we can monitor how much email traffic each Cabinet Minister is receiving)

    Step 1 : Simply highlight all emails, copy and paste in a new email.

    Step 2 : Write a simply message which starts with something like
    “Decriminalise Light Smacking – Please hear the voice of the 88% who voted against the anti-smacking law….” And then, if you want, add any additional comments – but at all times, PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL!

    Use this as a guide:

    (Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/_)

    Step 3: Press SEND!

    Thank you. Your voice really does count.

    Kind regards

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • The opponents of the anti-smacking law outnumber the supporters of ANY New Zealand government

    I (Beretta Blog) spotted this over at Kiwiblog today:

    1. 1,420,959 – Voted no to treating correctional smacking as a criminal offence
    2. 1,053,398 – 2008 Voted for National when they won the election
    3. 935,319 – 2005 Voted for Labour when they won the election
    4. 838,219 – 2002 Voted for Labour
    5. 800,199 – 1999 Voted for Labour
    6. 701,315 – 1996 Voted for National

    This certainly puts the lie to the claim that the referendum is irrlevant or that it was ignored because of an alleged bias in its presentation. The reality is, just those who voted NO outnumber the supporters of any political party that has won an election in this country. Then add the 200,000 or so who voted in the minority, and you’ve got one heck of a popular and representative referendum!

    Let’s now sit, watch, and see what our Prime Minister is made of.

  • Putting the referendum result in context

    via TBR.cc by iwishart on 8/21/09

    It has been said that the overall turnout (54%) in the smacking referendum provides no mandate.

    If this were true, no city or regional council has a mandate to govern today and all should resign pending a fresh election, as those results are decided on turnouts of fewer than 50%.

    But more significantly, here’s something else to keep in mind.

    More than 1.4 million people voted ‘No’ on the referendum.

    In the 1999 election that swept Labour’s Helen Clark to power, 800,199 people voted Labour.

    In the same 1999 election, 629,932 voted National.

    In other words, the no vote in the referendum is almost double (75% higher in fact), than the number of voters who gave Helen Clark a mandate to run New Zealand for three years.

    It is more than double (130% higher in fact), than the number of people who voted National in 1999.

    In fact, it may even be that on the final tally, the ‘No’ vote actually exceeds the combined votes of both National and Labour at the 1999 election.

    Green Party MP and pro-smacking law campaigner Sue Bradford has tried to argue that if you take into account those who didn’t vote (46%), and add them to the 11% who voted in favour of her own position, that’s a majority of the population who support her and therefore the referendum gives “no mandate” for change.

    Taking that logic at face value, if we look at the 1999 election, the number of people who did not vote Labour or did not turn out to vote, clearly outweighs Labour’s 800,000 votes.

    Bradford is on a loser if she keeps riding down that path.

    Ironically, more people voted No in last night’s referendum than voted in favour of introducing MMP to our electoral system. Does that mean we should declare MMP null and void using Bradford’s logic?

    Perhaps, if we did, the Greens would disappear in a puff of (dope) smoke.

  • They did not drown out the voice of the people! So what now?

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Kiwi Party Leader and referendum petition organiser Larry Baldock was thrilled by the provisional results released tonight by Chief Electoral Office.
    “My wife and I spent 18 months travelling through this country three times listening to people from all walks of life as they signed the petition on street corners, beaches, shows and sports events. What we heard then is confirmed in the result tonight,” said Mr Baldock.
    “The turnout of 54% confirms that New Zealanders value democracy and want their voice heard. The 87.6% no vote confirms that parliament was not listening to the people when 113 of them passed the Bradford law in 2007.
    “Personally I want to thank so many people for making this referendum and result possible. There have been many hundreds of volunteers who spent many hours of their time collecting signatures who can tonight feel very good about the sacrifice they made.
    I also want to thank every Kiwi that took part by casting their vote and continuing to put their faith in our democracy.
    “Because of the oxymoronic state of non-binding referenda in this country we must now ask the Prime Minister to respect our efforts and our voices. It is time to stop claiming the ‘law is working well’ when there remains 87% opposition to it after more than 2 years.
    “I have outlined a proposal for a way forward in the document attached that I believe would respect the result of this referendum,” Mr Baldock said.

    Ends

    Contact Larry Baldock
    021864833

    Attachments: The_way_forward.doc

  • Referendum/Section 59 – The way forward.

    The way forward.

    After 27 months of opinion poll after opinion poll recording an average 80% disapproval of the anti-smacking law, the people of New Zealand have spoken loud and clear to their House of Representatives. By an overwhelming majority they have said they do not want parents criminalised for smacking their children when this is done in the context of good care and parenting.

    There are a couple of options that can achieve this in law. Act MP John Boscawen’s bill that is based on National MP Chester Borrows earlier amendment, will achieve the decriminalisation of a light smack with an open hand. However it is not my preferred option for a couple of reasons.

    If proper parliamentary process were to be followed, any new bill like this would need to be referred to a select committee to hear public submissions because of new wording that would be introduced into the law such as the definition of a smack.

    Quite frankly I think we have had enough debate about this issue already and this could be a further waste of time and resources. Sue Bradford’s ill-conceived and unpopular law change has cost an enormous amount of resources and achieved nothing positive for the nation as a whole.

    Therefore I can understand to some extent why the Prime Minister is reluctant to re-open the debate within parliament when there are many important issues facing the nation in this difficult economic recession.

    I have always felt that the Borrows type amendment still interfered too much in the way parents might correct their children. After all, a different approach is needed with a two-year-old toddler from that needed with a defiant and rebellious ten year old.

    I think the best response to the majority ‘no vote’ in the referendum is for the Prime Minister to call Parliament to one session of urgency to pass an amendment to the new sec 59 of the Crimes Act that deletes 59(2) & (3).

    Supporters of the amended sec 59 passed by parliament on May 16 2007 often claimed that you could smack a child lawfully if they were about to put their hand in the fire for example as it was permitted under 59(1).

    Sec 59. 1. Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

    (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
    (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
    (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

    (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

    The problem was that subclause 2 says;

    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
    And then subsection 3 says

    (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

    If Subsections 2 & 3 were deleted then the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders expressed in the referendum would be carried out, and the use of reasonable force for correction could be covered under 59(1)(d).

    Since the use of reasonable force for the purpose of correction would no longer specifically be an offence, 59 (4) could be deleted.

    However if there were concerns about the use of correction under 59(1)(d) being clearly covered, 59(4) could be amended as follows.

    4. To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child involving the use of reasonable force for correction as part of performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting, where it is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

    Since these amendments have already been part of a lengthy select committee submission process, not to mention widespread public discussion, parliament would be justified in making such changes without referral to the public via submissions to a select committee since the public view has now been clearly expressed through the referendum.

    Ends

    Larry Baldock

    21 Aug 2009

  • Key says no to changing smacking law

    Key says no to changing smacking law

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776861/Key-says-no-to-changing-smacking-law

    By TOM FITZSIMONS, COLIN ESPINER and CLIO FRANCIS – The Dominion Post

    Smacking referendum results by electorates

    Pro-smacking campaigners are calling on the Government to fast-track a law change to allow parents to smack their children, after a thumping referendum victory.

    But Prime Minister John Key says he will not change the law, and the law’s original sponsor, Green MP Sue Bradford, says the question was so flawed the result is meaningless.

    Children’s Commissioner John Angus also joined the chorus of people saying the law should remain, as “it is good for children”.

    The referendum, which cost $8.9 million and drew a voter turnout larger than most local body elections, asked: Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    In preliminary results issued last night, 87.6 per cent of those who voted answered No, and 11.81 per cent said Yes.

    More than 1,622,000 people or 54 per cent of enrolled voters voted.

    Mr Key said he “took the message seriously” and would take a series of proposals to the Cabinet on Monday.

    The proposals stopped short of a law change, but he would not say whether he was planning to give new instructions to police. “It is my belief that the law is working and that at this point we don’t need to change the law,” he said.

    “I don’t think a law change is necessary. There are other changes that fall short of changing the law that I think can be introduced.”

    Mr Key has said he smacked his two children “very lightly and in moderation” when they were younger.

    Kiwi Party leader and poll campaigner Larry Baldock said the turnout showed how strongly people felt about the issue, and sent a firm message to Mr Key: “They want the authority back in the home and he is foolish to suggest this law is working.”

    Mr Baldock, a former MP, said the Government should bypass the select committee process and move straight to a vote in Parliament. References in the Crimes Act that barred parents from using force “for the purpose of correction” should be deleted, he said.

    He denied the poll question was biased and confusing. The law had made people angry. “Every parent has been disempowered. They’ve got children coming home and saying, `You can’t touch me’.”

    Ms Bradford said she had expected a majority “No” vote. She believed some people were so confused by the question they accidentally voted the wrong way. “Because the question is so flawed, the result is flawed. It’s not a clear indicator to the Government of what it should do, if anything.”

    Other voters had told her they had scrawled abusive comments on their ballots instead of answering the question, which could have spoiled their votes, she said.

    She accepted some people were still uncomfortable with the law, but said it should stand because “it’s a law about protecting our most vulnerable citizens”.

    Sheryl Savill, who instigated the referendum, felt “overwhelmed” by the result. “I am so pleased that such a large number of people have shown their support for this issue.”

    Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden said no data was kept about how many ballots had been written on or otherwise spoiled. But 9696 votes were recorded as “informal” because the voter’s intention could not be understood.

    Police are due to release their final report into how the law has affected their operations early next week. In reports so far, they have said its impact has been minimal.

    Turnout dwarfed the only previous citizen-initiated referendum decided by mail a 1995 question about firefighter numbers that only 26.96 per cent of voters responded to. Turnout at last year’s local body elections was about 41 per cent.