Family Integrity

Category: News Media/Press Releases

  • Focus Should Be Right to Care, Not Right To Die

    Family First NZ says that any bill to decriminalise euthanasia would lead to disabled, sick and elderly people coming to be viewed as a burden upon the taxpayer, society and their families – and that it would send a dangerous message to young people about suicide and the value of life.

    “A Sunday Star Times poll is trying to suggest that there is support for a law change – but hard and exceptional cases result in bad lawmaking, and this poll is inconsistent with other more independent and reliable polls,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “We should be focusing on making quality palliative and social care available – not promoting killing as an easy solution to a complex situation. In a culture of euthanasia, disabled, sick, socially disadvantaged, and elderly people come to be viewed as a burden upon the taxpayer, society and their families.”

    “This is not a ‘rights’ issue. This is a medical debate and how we better care for the weak and vulnerable in our society,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “The safeguards which are suggested may sound good, but international experience has shown that they often don’t become reality. Despite written consent laws in Netherlands and Belgium, up to a 1/3’rd of euthanasia cases were carried out without request or consent. Despite mandatory reporting requirements, in Belgium, nearly half of all cases aren’t reported. In the Netherlands, at least 20 per cent of all cases aren’t reported.”

    “There is also huge concern about the slippery slope effect. Why deny euthanasia to a patient who was suffering but who was not terminally ill, such as someone with severe arthritis? Why deny euthanasia to people who were not sick but who wanted to die for other reasons, such as the loss of a beloved spouse, or animal, or because of long-term unemployment? Or an unhappy teenager who is simply unhappy with their life? This is the exact opposite message to that which governments, educators, therapists and social workers are trying to reinforce.

    In England in 2006, over 70 percent of members of the Royal College of Physicians (and over 95 percent of those in the specialty of palliative medicine) agreed with the following statement: “With improvements in palliative care, good clinical care can be provided within existing legislation and …patients can die with dignity. A change in legislation is not needed.”

    “The sick and dying deserve care and protection – not an underlying message that euthanasia will fix everything,” says Bob McCoskrie

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Mothers Are Victims of P.C. Rights Culture

    Family First NZ is rejecting comments by Celia Lashlie about mothers being too soft, and says that for most parents, the problem is that the authority and role of parents has been undermined and the concept of the ‘rights’ of young people has actually caused more harm than good.

    “Parenting has been put on trial in New Zealand as a result of dopey laws like the anti-smacking law, welfare payments like the Independent Youth Benefit, and the rights of young people being trumpeted as being more important than the role of the family,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “It seems we are no longer allowed to teach our children the concept of ‘respect’, and that is now showing in the way many young people deal with authority like the police and teachers.”

    “Parents are doing their darned best in difficult circumstances, knowing that they could be criminalised for setting boundaries and consequences, and then having a finger pointed at them by experts when young people play up.”

    “The lack of inaction on alcohol abuse and the drinking age is a perfect example of the political neglect when it comes to empowering families to protect their children,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “As UK psychologist Aric Sigman said, parents, teachers, policemen, doctors, nurses now have to justify their actions like never before, and this just fuels young peoples’ views of their self-importance.”

    “Alcohol abuse by teenagers, risky behavior and dangerous driving, reports of knife attacks in primary schools, suspensions of new entrants for disobedience and aggression, and increasing levels of criminal assaults being committed by primary school age students is no surprise – and will worsen, especially when schools are pressured to accept and accommodate increasingly defiant and unacceptable behaviour by children, and as parental authority is undermined by politicians,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Celia Lashlie is correct in saying that there are ‘push-over parents’, but we need to address the far more important issue of how we are disempowering and demonising good parents.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Parenting ‘Risky Business In Terms Of Legal Consequences’ – Lawyers

    MEDIA RELEASE

    20 July 2011

    Family First NZ says that lawyers have sent a clear warning to parents regarding the anti-smacking law – that parenting is now a risky business and parents should always seek legal advice when facing complaints about smacking, no matter how reasonable or appropriate they believe their actions to be.

    “One of the sad aspects of the anti-smacking law is that it has done nothing to stop our horrendous rates of child abuse, but it has put good parents at the risk of criminalization for what is appropriate and non-abusive parenting, This has been backed up by the concerns expressed by, and experiences of, legal professionals,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Anecdotal evidence received by Family First always backs up these concerns.”

    “Prominent Wellington Barrister Greg King says that a smack, no matter how light, could certainly amount in law to an assault, whether or not it is justified or not depends on all of the relevant circumstances, but I repeat a parent who smacks a child risks being charged. This is in direct conflict to the assurances of the Prime Minister to kiwi parents.”

    “Napier Barrister Phillip Ross warns that the prosecutor’s discretion not to charge does not give the Court a similar discretion.

    Auckland lawyer John Cagney says that not only is s59 expressed in such a way that prediction of outcome from particular action is impossible but the outcome is often dependent on the sympathies and prejudices of many of the officials involved in the prosecution and court process.”

    “Wellington lawyer Michael Bott reiterates what all the lawyers have recommended – that no matter whether the parent thinks the actions were justified and reasonable, they should get legal advice before they open their mouth to police or CYF, and says we’ve got good parents who are being caught up. And that’s extremely sad. But it’s what we predicted,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “New Plymouth lawyer Barry Henderson says this regrettable situation has lead to incredible confusion with decent parents. And Auckland Barrister Evgeny Orlov warns that the anti-smacking legislation is the tip of an iceberg. The law allows the State to take away your children even if you show unacceptable levels of anger let alone smacking them.”

    “It is disappointing that parenting in NZ has become a legal minefield because the politicians have failed to tackle the real causes of child abuse and have instead criminalized good and non-abusive parenting practice,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    The full advice for parents is on the recently released www.protectgoodparents.org.nz website under “legal advice for parents’.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 July 2010

    Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step

    ‘How many more children have to die before we do something?’

    Family First NZ is repeating its call for a Commission of Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse and deaths in NZ, and says that it will be an important first step in identifying and targeting the real causes of child abuse.

    The call comes following the death of 6 month old Cezar Taylor. More than 20 children have been killed since the passing of the anti-smacking law, maintaining the rate of child abuse deaths that existed before the law change.

    “We are tip-toeing around the real issues of alcohol abuse, drugs, declining rates of marriage, increasing levels of violence and sexual content in our media, and welfare which rewards dysfunction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on these difficult issues as well as mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF and CYF reports.”

    “The 88% of voters in the recent Referendum who opposed the anti-smacking law are NZ’ers exasperated with the fact that politicians and government funded groups seem more interested in targeting good parents than tackling these much tougher issues.”

    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    “An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

    HALL OF SHAME

    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007

    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007

    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007

    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007

    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa

    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu

    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury

    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008

    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008

    10.  16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008

    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009

    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009

    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009

    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09

    15. Three-year-old Kash McKinnon Palmerston North Aug 09

    16. Baby death arrest Green Bay 26 Aug 2009 http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=41369

    17. 22 month old Hail-Sage McClutchie Morrinsville 27 Sep 2009

    18. Karl Perigo-Check Junior Wanganui 25 Oct 2009

    19. 13 month old New Lynn 18 Feb 2010
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626907

    20. Infanticide Waltham 18 Feb 2010
    Police investigating the death of a baby who was found at a Christchurch address yesterday are looking for the child’s mother.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3342576/Police-appeal-for-dead-babys-mother

    21. Cezar Taylor 6 months July 2010


    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

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

  • ‘Ear flick’ case goes to Supreme Court

    ‘Ear flick’case goes to Supreme Court

    One News July 07, 2010
    Christchurch father Jimmy Mason has been given leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. The 51-year-old was sentenced to nine months supervision and ordered to undergo anger management courses after a jury found him guilty of assaulting one of his two children. The case was widely seen as a test of the anti-smacking laws as Mason publicly claimed he’d done no more than flick his son’s ear. The Supreme Court has just announced it will permit him to appeal his conviction on the grounds that combining two allegations in a single count resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The two allegations are punching a child and pulling his ear. READ MORE
    Family First Comment: This is significant because our original concern with this case was that a father who admitted an ear flick may have been found guilty of assault because of the way the charges were applied. We’ll watch this one with interest.

    HEAR Family First’s reaction to the original verdict

    Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz

  • Mums Still Smacking, Want Law Change not Discretion – Poll

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 March 2010

    Mums Still Smacking,

    Want Law Change not Discretion – Poll

    Family First NZ says that almost half of our mums of young children have admitted smacking illegally in the past 12 months, and three out of four mums want the government to adopt a law change rather than rely on police (and CYF) discretion.

    These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ. The Curia Market Research poll surveyed 1,000 people, and also found continued confusion over the legal effect of the law.

    “This poll confirms that the Prime Minister has not reassured parents. They are still concerned that he is willing to retain a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, extremely vague, and had to whip his MP’s to support.”

    “Immediately following the referendum last year, polling showed 52% wanted a law change and 27% supported no law change but greater discretion as suggested by the PM. That has now almost returned to the 80% benchmark of opposition to the law that has been present for the past 5 years.”

    _________________________________________________________________

    KEY FINDINGS

    Extensive support for a law change across all demographics (4 out of 5 people)

    3 out of 4 say the law is not at all likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse

    Only 1/3’rd of respondents actually understand the law correctly

    45% of mums of under 12’s have smacked illegally in past 12 months

    1/4 of mums more likely to vote for political party that commits to changing law

    _________________________________________________________________

    “A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment. That’s what parents deserve, what they want, and what the politicians should respect and act on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    As a result of this poll, Family First is continuing to call on the government to adopt ACT MP John Boscawen’s private members bill which is similar to National MP Chester Borrow’s proposed amendment. National MP’s were supporting this amendment until they were whipped to vote for Sue Bradford’s bill at the last minute.

    The poll was conducted between 24 and 28 March 2010 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Some Kids Are Never Spanked – Do They Turn Out Better?

    Some Kids Are Never Spanked – Do They Turn Out Better?

    Po Bronson

    For decades, research on spanking was challenged by the lack of a control group to compare against – almost all kids (90+%) had been spanked at least once, at some time in their early lives. New research shows that now up to 25% of kids are never spanked, so it’s a fair question: How are they turning out? Are they turning out better? Surprisingly, they’re not.

    In NurtureShock, we described some extensive cross-ethnic and international research on spanking by Drs. Jennifer Lansford and Ken Dodge.

    Their data suggested that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use. To explain this shocker, the scholars suggested that in cultures or communities where spanking is common, parents are less agitated when administering spankings. Spanking almost never—when combined with losing your temper—can be worse than spanking frequently.* But what about the third option: not spanking them at all? Unfortunately, there’s been little study of this, because children who’ve never been spanked aren’t easy to find. Most kids receive physical discipline at least once in their life. But times are changing, and parents today have numerous alternatives to spanking. The result is that kids are spanked less often overall, and kids who’ve never been spanked are becoming a bigger slice of the pie in long-term population studies. One of those new population studies underway is called Portraits of American Life. It involves interviews of 2,600 people and their adolescent children every three years for the next 20 years. Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe is working with the first wave of data on the teens. It turns out that almost a quarter of these teens report they were never spanked. So this is a perfect opportunity to answer a very simple question: are kids who’ve never been spanked any better off, long term? Gunnoe’s summary is blunt: “I didn’t find that in my data.” The study asked teens how old they were when their last spanking occurred, and how often they would get spanked as a child. That was cross-referenced against the data on bad outcomes we might fear spanking could lead to years later: antisocial behavior, early sexual activity, physical violence, and depression. But Gunnoe went further. She also looked at many good outcomes we might want for our teens, such as academic rank, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living when they grow up. Studies of corporal punishment almost never look at good outcomes, but Gunnoe wanted to really tease out the differences in these kids. What she discovered was another shocker: those who’d been spanked just when they were young—ages 2 to 6—were doing a little better as teenagers than those who’d never been spanked. On almost every measure. A separate group of teens had been spanked until they were in elementary school. Their last spanking had been between the ages of 7 and 11. These teens didn’t turn out badly, either. Compared with the never-spanked, they were slightly worse off on negative outcomes, but a little better off on the good outcomes. Only the teenagers who were still being spanked clearly showed problems. Gunnoe is now looking at how parenting styles might explain these patterns—especially the mystery of why the never-spanked are doing worse than expected. Gunnoe doesn’t know what she’ll find, but my thoughts jump immediately to the work of Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, whom we wrote about in NurtureShock. Schoppe-Sullivan found that children of progressive dads were acting out more in school. This was likely because the fathers were inconsistent disciplinarians; they were emotionally uncertain about when and how to punish, and thus they were reinventing the wheel every time they had to reprimand their child. And there was more conflict in their marriage over how best to parent, and how to divide parenting responsibilities. I admit to taking a leap here, but if the progressive parents are the ones who never spank (or at least there’s a large overlap), then perhaps the consistency of discipline is more important than the form of discipline. In other words, spanking regularly isn’t the problem; the problem is having no regular form of discipline at all. _____________ * As we wrote in our book, even in cultures were spanking is more common, its use is still very rare (perhaps once or twice in a kid's entire lifetime), and we aren't talking about severe beatings of a child, but a swat across the behind. Additionally, the work of Dodge and Lansford (who remain adamantly against corporal punishment) suggests that, in societies that consider spanking unacceptable, parents still spank—but they hit in anger—when they've lost control. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/nurtureshock/archive/2009/12/30/never-been-spanked.aspx

  • Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 January 2010

    Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    Family First NZ says that ‘time out’ is now being labeled as harmful to children based on flawed ideology and without any research to back up the claims, as was the case with the smacking debate.

    “Last week, an Australian parenting expert labeled time out as shameful and humiliating, joining other so-called parenting experts who claim that time out creates hurt, anger and defiance in a child ultimately harming them. They also claim that nervous habits can result, and that children should not be told they are naughty,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Once again, these unsubstantiated and ideologically flawed claims and latest fads in parenting by academics simply undermine the confidence of parents to raise their children in a positive and common sense way. Where does it stop? Will it soon be unacceptable to withdraw privileges or ‘ground’ a child – perhaps it will soon be even unacceptable to frown at a child who is misbehaving!”

    “Great and law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to changed their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology. Yet all these techniques have been proven throughout the generations to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “The discipline, training and correction of children, and techniques being used to achieve this, are being demonized with no justification.”

    “For example, research earlier this month has shown that light smacking is not harmful and can even be beneficial to children.”

    “Parents should be given the freedom and respect to raise their own children in a common sense and non-abusive way rather than being harassed with the latest theories of child rearing from so-called experts,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    It’s time the government listened to thorough and balanced research, and to the experience of parents and grandparents on smacking, time out and other issues related to raising responsible and law abiding citizens, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of academics and state agencies who have misdefined positive parenting and child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    MEDIA RELEASE

    4 January 2010

    Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    Family First NZ is welcoming the latest research showing that light and reasonable smacking is beneficial to children in their development, and despite claims by government funded groups, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use.

    “Previous research has not been able to compare children who have been smacking with those who have never been smacked, because children who’ve never been smacked were hard to find as most kids received physical discipline at least once in their life,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “But due to the pervading anti-smacking ideology, this has changed.”

    “Yet this study found that young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been smacked. Children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined. Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioural problems.”

    Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children. Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

    This follows earlier research from Duke University which showed that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use because parents are less agitated and more consistent.

    “This is more evidence to go alongside previous NZ-based research from Professor Fergusson at Christchurch School of Medicine and from Otago University showing that light smacking is not child abuse, is actually beneficial when used in a positive and loving family environment, and should definitely not be a criminal offence in this country,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to change their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology.  Yet these techniques are proven to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “It’s time the government listened to the thorough and balanced research on smacking and the concerns of parents and grandparents raising or who have raised great kids, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of government funded groups which should be focusing on actual child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 December 2009

    Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    WORK STILL TO BE DONE TO GIVE PARENTS CERTAINTY ON SMACKING LAW…

    Family First NZ has released its annual list of the top family issues to be tackled, and heading the list for 2010 is the protection of children from ‘corporate pedophilia’ and reducing the ‘raunch culture’ which is harming the self-esteem, body image and academic performance of young people – especially young girls.

    “The recent marketing of sexualised shirts by Cotton On Kids to be worn by babies, the provocative Little Losers line targeted at young teenagers by clothing store Jay Jays, sexually charged billboard advertising in public places, and graphic sexual music videos, dolls, and tween magazines and websites which encourage young people to look older and act older are examples of marketers crossing the line of what is acceptable and appropriate for our communities and for the protection of our children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “A premature interest in a sexy appearance, an obsession about body image as a teenager, and an undermining of the social prohibition against seeing children as sexual objects and sexually attractive, are all huge warning flags that profits are currently more important than protecting the wellbeing of our children.”

    Also in the list is a call to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the real causes of child abuse, and a number of measures to recognise and respect the role of parents, including parental notification laws and amending the anti-smacking law to give parents certainty under the law.

    The list calls for the urgent establishment of an independent CYF Complaints Authority, and amending the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels.

    “There is still huge work to be done on reducing our child abuse rates, but also making sure that CYF and other statutory agencies don’t overstep their levels of intervention. The government is also hoping that the smacking debate will disappear, but while parents are trying to raise law abiding productive members of society, the debate will not be going away. It will become an election issue if the government doesn’t act to amend this law.”

    “The current government is attempting to stay clear of anything that might suggest social engineering,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “But there are a number of social issues which this government must tackle if they wish to be respected by parents trying to raise children in an increasingly difficult culture which undermines their efforts.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    FULL LIST

    1. Laws and Codes of Advertising to protect children/young people from sexualised images and marketing of sexual messages towards children

    The Australian Childhood Foundation released a report in Apr 2007, which showed that problem sexual behaviour in children as young as six, often appears to be influenced by sex imagery in the media. This is challenging the previously held view that most child sex abusers were responding to having being abused themselves.

    And a recent report by the American Psychological Association points to the dangers when sexualisation leads to girls viewing themselves as objects and having an unhealthy preoccupation with appearance. The pressure can lead to depression, eating disorders, and poor academic performance.

    Advertisements for kids’ products should not include sexual imagery, imply that children are sexual beings, or imply that owning a product will enhance a child’s sexuality.

    As prominent Australian psychologist Steve Biddulph said, “…smarter parents protect their kids, but as the media environment and the shopping malls deteriorate, the kids with not very bright parents have their mental healthy and sexual health degraded.”

    There is also research suggesting that pedophilia and child pornography is being driven by the sexualisation of children in mainstream marketing.

    2. Parental notification

    A parent is required to sign a note giving permission for a child to go on a school trip to the zoo but does not have to be notified or give consent if the same daughter wants to use contraception or have an abortion, and can actually be sneaked off for the procedure by Family Planning or the school nurse. Some young girls have been targeted for vaccines by family doctors without the knowledge of the parents.

    If parents are expected to support and raise their children to be law-abiding and positive members of our society, then these same parents should be kept informed and involved in the ongoing welfare of that child, and not undermined by laws which isolate children from their parents.

    3. Establishing a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse

    We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by the various UNICEF, CYF and Children’s Commissioner reports.

    Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with at least 18 deaths since the law was passed. Sue Bradford was right when she said that her law was never intended to deal with the problem of child abuse.

    Children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse. An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step

    4. Amending the anti-smacking law to provide certainty for parents

    The Prime Minister has confused parents by saying recently that a light smack is completely ok and should not be treated as a criminal offence, yet only a few months earlier admitting that the effect of the law is that smacking is a criminal offence.

    The recent unbalanced and superficial review was another government-funded sales pitch for a flawed law which has been resoundingly rejected by New Zealanders. John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores almost 90% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague.

    A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment – the Boscawen amendment. The politicians should demand a conscience vote on this issue, and the law should give parents certainty as to whether they are parenting within the law or not.

    5. Establishing an Independent CYF Complaints Authority

    Families who claim to have been unfairly treated by CYF social workers have no independent body to appeal to. This is grossly unfair when families are at risk, ignored, or are being ripped apart often just based on the subjective judgment of a social worker.

    An independent CYF Complaints Authority is also in the best interests of social workers as it will provide an independent body to ensure that appropriate policy and procedures have been followed. This will result in public confidence and accountability for actions and decisions by CYF workers.

    There is a Health and Disability Commissioner, a Police Complaints Authority, even a Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. We desperately need an independent body to hear complaints about the highly sensitive nature of intervening in families.

    6. Amend the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels

    The politicians gave local communities a ‘hospital pass’ when they changed the law and left the local councils the impossible job of balancing the requirements of the law with the huge concerns of families. They cannot now ignore the pleas from communities throughout NZ who are saying that the decriminalisation of prostitution has been a spectacular failure.

    The opposition to a residential based brothel in the Wellington area, opposition to a brothel in the main street of Dannevirke, opposition to brothels being zoned for the main shopping areas in Lower Hutt, opposition to a sex parlour operating in the same building as a preschool in Wellington, Hamilton City Council’s successful restriction on residential brothels, and attempts by the Manukau City Council to tackle the problems of street prostitution, shows that communities are not accepting the liberalised laws.


    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up