Category: News Media/Press Releases

Plans to screen and treat children as young as three are part of new Government plans to cut anti-social behaviour.

The six-year multi-agency plan has been developed by the ministries of education, health and social development and is designed to increase the number of children getting help for severe anti-social behaviour and conduct disorder.

It is estimated that up to 5 per cent of primary and intermediate pupils have problems with conduct or display severe anti-social behaviour.

The report said it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of intervention services.

However, it said “key challenges” had been identified, including “inadequate and inconsistent mechanisms for identifying and determining eligibility for services for young people” and “gaps in the availability of specialist services”.

The plan proposes developing systematic screening for three to seven-year-olds within the education sector.

Treatment plans would include parenting classes and education for teachers on how to deal with disruptive children, as well as a “behaviour change programme” for the child.

A referral for mental health treatment could be included.

The foreword, signed by Education Minister Steve Maharey, Health Minister Pete Hodgson and Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson, said behaviour problems were the “single most important predictor of later chronic anti-social behaviour problems, including poor mental health, academic underachievement, early school-leaving, teenage parenthood, delinquency, unemployment and substance abuse”.

Canterbury University College of Education senior lecturer John Church, who contributed to the report, said early intervention was more likely to succeed.

“The critical element is parental involvement and the thing about working with young kids is most parents want the best for their kids,” he said. “When their children are three or four, most parents will come on board. By age 12 or 13, the parents usually want out because they have been worn down.”

It was also more cost-effective. “It is possible to have a little parenting training, which is a good influence on the children for about $4000 per case at the age of five to six,” he said.

Church said that by the age of four it was possible to distinguish between children who were a little badly behaved and those with severe problems.

He said he would also like to see teachers given more training to identify children with severe behavioural problems.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie said the Government needed to back up its words with actions. `There are plenty of organisations out there who are working with these people and know them and what they are looking for.”

He said he had similar concerns about the plan to those he had had about Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro’s plan to screen all families for signs of abuse. “We need to be targeting that percentage of high-risk families we know about rather than trying to criminalise all families.”

The New Zealand Educational Institute said it supported inter-agency plans because the onus for dealing with anti-social behaviour should not fall just on teachers.

Schools are becoming increasingly violent.

Your Views
Is it time to bring back the cane?
Send us Your Views
http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/feedback/yourviews/index.cfm?objectid=10465769

It is a daily struggle for teacher Judy Firkins to manage her 5- and 6-year-old children at Jean Batten School in Mangere.

She has been punched, been struck by objects thrown at her and had to restrain children attacking other pupils in her decile 1 classroom.

“How much more stress do we have to cope with and how resilient does a teacher have to be before we get practical help with these students?” she said in a passionate address to the New Zealand Educational Institute annual meeting in Wellington yesterday.

“As a senior, experienced teacher, these children are demoralising and destroying my enthusiasm to provide an exciting and vibrant programme.”

Mrs Firkins, who has been teaching for 35 years, told the Herald she had taken several blows from one boy while trying to protect other pupils.

“He just fisticuffed me and I ended up with bruises on my chest,” she said.

“I have one child in the class … I cannot physically handle him. I think he’s learned that the way to cope with anger is violence, and I get worried about the safety of my children and myself in this vulnerable situation.

“And you’re just wasting so much valuable teaching time.”

Mrs Firkins was one of several teachers at the meeting to express deep concerns over the impact of increasingly aggressive children.

They spoke about how disruption – including physical and verbal attacks from children as young as 2 – was eroding classroom safety and the quality of education.

A New Zealand Educational Institute report based on a survey at the end of last year found that one in seven primary school teachers had been hit by students last year, and 58 per cent reported “aggressive verbalconfrontations” with students.

Dealing with it came at a high personal cost to many teachers, who have to cope with emotional stress, physical injuries and sapping conditions.

“This has become a norm: you can expect to walk into your room every day and know someone is going to make your life hell,” said Tauranga teacher Graham Woodhead, who teaches 10- and 11-year-olds.

Early childhood education teacher Diane Lawrence said: “It doesn’t only happen in [primary] schools, it starts well before then – the throwing of chairs, the biting, the hitting, the verbal stuff [from 3- or 4-year-olds] and younger. There has been a huge increase in the time since I’ve been teaching [1981].”

Union members at the meeting backed the institute’s report, which endorsed a wider community and Government response to a problem that had its roots outside the classroom.

“We have to change the way people behave, we have to change the way people think, stop these kids from thinking it’s okay to behave like that,” said the institute’s national vice-president, Frances Nelson.

She said the institute would now seek feedback from community groups and the Government on how to address the problem.

Those WOFs for kids and parents
By PAT BOOTH – Auckland | Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Strange but true – some great ideas which seem so simple are actually very complex.

That’s a first reaction to the well-intentioned plan from Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro for what amounts to regular Warrants of Fitness checks on children from birth to five.

A WOF, let’s make it clear, not only of a child’s health and well-being but also the fitness of parents to provide a stable and safe environment for them.

In the light of what we now know to be life around us you can’t fault the intention.

She estimates that this move could save the lives of five children every year for the first five years alone.

That would cut in half the country’s terrible record of killing its children.

The Kiro plan in its simplest definition: Regular and compulsory screening of every baby’s home life.

She wants every newborn baby’s parents or caregivers to nominate ‘an authorised provider’ (whatever that means) to assess their family’s progress through home visits.

Under the Kiro rules, those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities who would set up an official monitoring process.

Cindy Kiro has been quoted as describing systems of ‘voluntary engagement’ with groups like Plunket as ‘a recipe for disaster’.

She says her scheme, which she believes would cost about $5 million a year – a quote which sounds suspiciously low – has no equals anywhere. “We can lead the world in it.”

Briefing papers for the plan are being written for the government’s task force on family violence, which has launched a $14m campaign to fight domestic violence.

The campaign is apparently based on a 2005 report written by Auckland University researcher Janet Fanslow, who says home visits are one of the only proven methods to cut the child abuse rate.

The big doubt in my mind is just how feasible is it?

The logistics seem overwhelming.

The Health Ministry has had major, long-running problems setting up a national computer register of children’s jabs – who and when.

In the Auckland region, the potential figures for the new WOF are daunting.

Samples from the 2006 census: More than 14,600 children four and under in Waitakere and more than 12,500 in North Shore city alone, a total of more than 6000 new babies each year in Waitakere, Shore and Rodney, for example.

These figures don’t include statistics from the big baby-making suburbs in Manukau either.

How many staff would you need to register totals like this, then to identify and track them through those first five years?

How many trained specialists would the country need to keep up those regular and all-important visiting rosters?

Who would have the professional skills and personal abilities to see the signs of danger and to act on them?

How would ill-equipped and irresponsible parents respond?

How would capable and caring parents react to this regime?

How would welfare departments who have failed so often in the past lift their standards and their processes to cope?

And then, inevitably, there would be outcries from civil liberties and ethnic groups who would find human rights issues and/or cultural objections to what they would see as a Big Brother intrusion into so many private and blameless lives.

For me, if it could be made to work, I’d sooner that children’s names are on computer files than on tombstones.

Child home-screening plan ‘insult’
By DAVE BURGESS – | Monday, 10 September 2007

A proposal by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro to have mandatory screening of every baby’s home life is the ultimate insult, Family First NZ says.

The estimated $5-million-a-year scheme would make it compulsory for every newborn’s caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family’s progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities.

The suggestion has outraged Bob McCoskrie, the national director of Christian-based lobby group Family First. “To threaten to refer the overwhelming majority of well-functioning parents and families – who will quite rightly resist this intrusion – to social welfare agencies is the ultimate insult.”

Briefing papers are being written for presentation to the Government’s task force for action on family violence, which began a $14 million campaign last week to fight domestic violence.

The proposal is in response to shocking child abuse statistics. Regular Unicef report cards, updated this year, consider New Zealand the most dangerous place for children, in terms of health and safety, out of 24 developed countries.

The Paediatric Society estimates 15 to 20 children are killed through child abuse each year.

Mr McCoskrie said the children’s commissioner should concentrate on the problems that lead to child abuse, such as gang violence, methamphetamine use, violence in schools and the breakdown in families.

“But she wants to treat all parents as potential child abusers rather than affording them the respect, support and encouragement they deserve – while failing to target the real abusers.”

National Party leader John Key said mandatory investigation of all children should be a last resort.

“A targeted approach would allow for more resources to be put in to those with greatest need.”

The proposal calls for a database to track the development of New Zealand children, which Mr Key would not oppose. “You have to balance the intrusion of privacy over the need to try to get a resolution to an issue that is of quite great concern. In this case the issue warrants that.”

But Mr Key doubted that the scheme could be run for $5 million a year. At-risk families would have to receive concentrated support from agencies such as Plunket.

Child, Youth and Family Services Minister Ruth Dyson welcomed the early intervention programme and said she would discuss the proposal with agencies.

Many beneficiaries reveal abuse
By PHIL HAMILTON – The Press | Monday, 3 September 2007

Thousands of beneficiaries are victims of domestic violence, according to new Work and Income statistics.

In the first year, Work and Income’s family violence intervention programme asked beneficiaries to reveal violence in the home.

Across the 11 Work and Income (Winz) regions there were 3817 disclosures until the end of June this year, with 339 in Canterbury.

Work and Income head Patricia Reade said a family violence co-ordinator had been put into each region, with no real idea of how many disclosures they would receive.

“We had no expectations around numbers,” Reade said. “We just wanted to ensure we were providing appropriate support around domestic violence.”

Reade said the number of disclosures, which were leaked to the Press, equated to just over one per cent of their total clients.

“In the context of total benefits (280,000) it’s not a big number.”

The programme was confidential, with just 1312 of the total number willing to have the information put on their record, she said.

The regional co-ordinators support frontline staff with training, mentoring and information on the range of services and programmes available.

When a person discloses family violence, the case manager refers them to services such as Women’s Refuge, Stopping Violence Services, Barnardos and Jigsaw.

Reade said Work and Income could make a significant contribution to reducing family violence and promoting the safety and well-being of clients and their families.

“Because family violence is a sensitive and personal issue, Work and Income provides a supportive and safe environment but respects the client’s choice about when and how they disclose family violence.”

Christchurch Women’s Refuge manager Annette Gillespie said the programme was proving to be a success. “One, in raising awareness; two, in making sure there’s a referral path; and three, for strengthening the relationship between our agencies.”

She said Women’s Refuge had noticed the increase in the number of referrals from Work and Income, but it was not known whether those women would have contacted Women’s Refuge themselves.

With the rollout of domestic violence screening at all public hospitals, Gillespie expected demand for Women’s Refuge services to rise.

“We would expect where there is the demand there will be greater resourcing.”

The programme began in all regions in June 2006, although it had been operating in Nelson, Canterbury and Bay of Plenty as a pilot.

end

“We would expect where there is the demand there will be greater resourcing.”

New Zealanders were sickened when little Nia Glassie – aged 3 – was brutalised and later died in hospital. Many New Zealanders felt that her death was, ironically, a respite from what had clearly been an unmerciful, cruel and short life. Most of us wondered at how anybody could be so evil to a child. Most of us wondered at what has happened to sections of our communities that every 5 weeks, one of our babies is killed, usually by those charged with loving and nurturing them.

It is very easy to put money into welfare and into “programmes”. It’s not so easy to understand the mindset of those who are so lacking in empathy and so devoid of human decency and kindness that they will kill a child. What is even less easy is to stop making excuses for such people, to identify and then prevent the abuse.

We were told by the proponents of the anti-smacking law that this law would stop child abuse. It hasn’t. It won’t. We were told that those of us who have smacked our child on the hand or bottom for being naughty or unruly were, at worst, child abusers and, at the least, condoned “beating our babies”. We weren’t and we aren’t. Now with John Key’s intervention, the Police are required to use common sense in deciding whether or not to prosecute – something that was missing from Sue Bradford’s bill.

We need to understand how someone becomes a child abuser – not to make excuses, but to try to stop babies being killed. There are common markers for child abuse. We know that these incidences primarily occur in what is called “dysfunctional families”. James Whakaruru, Coral- Ellen Burrows, Nia Glassie, Soleil Aplin and Olympia Jetson (to name only a few) lived their short lives in severely dysfunctional homes. The families are normally well known to Child Youth and Family and the Police. They usually consist of loose personal relationships, intergenerational welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addictions, intergenerational child abuse including child sexual abuse, criminality, poor literacy and numeracy, lack of empathy for others, despair, lack of personal responsibility and a reliance on a variety of government departments. Mix all these together, add a child, and we have a recipe for disaster.

In the meantime, a group of parents have organised a march against child abuse this Saturday, 25 August, at 10am in Queen Elizabeth II Square, Queen Street, Auckland. Indications are that the Children’s Commissioner and government agencies won’t attend. Apparently, the organisers are so politically incorrect as to call for harsher sentences for child abusers. Should abusing a child be elevated to a principal factor in sentencing? Of course it should. I’ll attend the march and you might like to be there too.

When good parenting becomes a crime

——————————————————————————–
August 22, 2007

Bob Dylan’s song “The Times, They are a-Changin’” accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.

The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or “smacking” as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a “brave” new world. “Our support will not be popular with many people … but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don’t hit our children.”

In Germany, as WorldNetDaily has reported, families who seek to homeschool their children are battling a government that claims it must prevent “parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions.” Parents of homeschooling families, many of whom are Christian, are being arrested and their children forcibly removed to public schools and foster homes because Germany claims its “obligation to provide for education” includes the exclusive right to produce “responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society” – a category that apparently excludes homeschoolers. The European Court of Human Rights gave its stamp of approval last year to this recent tyranny by the German government.

Even some in America are trying to emulate these assaults on parental authority. In February of this year, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make spanking of children younger than 3 years old a criminal offense punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this time. And in many states there are increasing attempts to regulate and restrict the growing trend of homeschooling, which seems to pose a threat to proponents of government-monopolized education.

Our Western legal heritage has always recognized that the law of nature and nature’s God has given parents – and not the state – the authority to control the education and discipline of their children. Any government usurpation of that family jurisdiction is an unwarranted abuse of power that runs contrary to historical, legal and biblical precepts.

In his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Sir William Blackstone wrote that while parents have duties to their children with respect to “their maintenance, their protection, and their education,” the duty to provide an education is by far “the greatest importance of any.” Blackstone further explained that a parent would not confer any considerable benefit upon his child if, after bringing him into the world, “he entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself.”

The duty to provide an education for one’s child springs directly from the biblical requirement to “[t]rain up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” In Deuteronomy 6:7, we are taught the necessity of teaching God’s law “diligently unto thy children,” and in Ephesians 6:4 to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

If a parent chooses to educate his or her child outside of the home, Blackstone explains that the parental authority is then delegated “to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis [in the place of a parent].” Government schools, therefore, have no inherent right or duty to educate children, but operate solely on that authority delegated to them by the parents. They certainly have no authority, as the German schools claim, to squelch “separate philosophical convictions” cherished by parents who choose to exercise their authority to teach their children at home.

Regarding discipline, Blackstone noted that a parent “may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner, for this is for the benefit of his education.” Of course, child abuse and physical mistreatment are not considered to be “in a reasonable manner” and are rightfully declared to be unlawful. But reasonable discipline, including spanking, should never be prohibited by law.

The Bible is explicit that spanking is part of the authority of a parent. “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15). I can still remember, as a boy, my father’s words to me before he gave me a good taste of his belt of correction for my disobedience. I now realize that it did “hurt him more than it hurt me” because he loved me. As the Scriptures instruct, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24).

Blackstone spoke of a timeless truth when he said that an undisciplined child grows up to be an undisciplined adult, “like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself.” If we allow the state to erode parental authority over discipline and education, we will reap, among other things, higher crime and even lower morality in the next generation. Abandoning God’s unchanging law is a sure way to really see the times “a-changin’,” but not for the better.

——————————————————————————–

Related special offers:

“Child Training Tips: What I Wish I Knew When My Children Were Young” http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=16&ITEM_ID=939

“The Harsh Truth About Public Schools” http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=16&ITEM_ID=1683

——————————————————————————–

Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala., and the author of “So Help Me God.” He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God.

Does Freedom Work?

America’s basic governing principle is freedom, because social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy.

In a world run by humanists, failure is blamed upon the family.

Listen Online
http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_36.php

NZ Catholic: Child abuse linked to abortion mentality
By Gavin Abraham
8/13/2007
NZ Catholic (www.nzcatholic.org.nz/)

AUCKLAND, New Zealand (NZ Catholic) – The warranted outrage at the recent horrific cases of child abuse in New Zealand are the end result of a society that allows abortion, Right to Life New Zealand has asserted.

Rotorua three-year-old Nia Glassie died on Aug. 2 after suffering from prolonged abuse. Right to Life’s Ken Orr said the community is “outraged” by the injuries Nia received, and by the fact New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse among members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Orr said a $14 million campaign to prevent child abuse is “welcomed as a positive step; however it is doomed to failure.”

“As a society, are we really concerned about preventing violence against our children?” Orr asked. “We are suffering from moral blindness, for we are concerned about protecting born children from violence but not unborn children.”

“If we lose respect for the child in the womb, it is natural that we should lose respect for the born child,” he said. ”Should we be surprised that if we allow the killing of unborn children by abortion, it would follow that there is also going to be violence against born children?”

Bob McCoskrie, the director of Family First New Zealand, pointed out that the way families operate is indicative of how the country operates. He has joined with For the Sake of Our Children Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust to devise a five-point plan to address New Zealand’s child-abuse problem.

Under the heading “When our families are messed up, our nation is messed up,” the three organizations call for:

– A non-political commission of inquiry to identify effective and achievable solutions to child abuse, and examine specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family structure and breakdown, race-based issues, and poverty and stress;

– An increase of support and resourcing of grassroots community organizations that are working with at-risk families and those attempting to stop abuse in the first place;

– Increased investment in and availability of parenting and marriage programs;

– Media-based anti-child abuse campaigns, in the same way road safety “shock” campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging “positive” parenting and identifying what is abuse;

– Sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially toughened to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community’s disgust with the actions of people who abuse children.

– – –

With permission from Gavin of NZ Catholic, New Zealand’s national Catholic newspaper.

Toddler’s tantrum brings three cops knocking
5:00AM Tuesday August 14, 2007
By Louisa Cleave

Karyn Scherer: No, I don’t abuse my kids, but thanks for checking
When Karyn Scherer’s 2-year-old threw a bedtime tantrum, the last thing the busy working mother expected was three police officers knocking on her door.

But that’s what happened on Saturday night after a neighbour of the senior Herald journalist called 111.

The police who responded said they had to check everything as quickly as possible, given the number of children who suffered harm.

Police made no apologies yesterday for responding to an emergency call to the Titirangi property from a neighbour who told them: “I can hear a child screaming … and I’ve heard it before.”

The call was taken at the Northern Communications Centre and a West Auckland patrol unit was sent.

Waitakere Police commander Inspector Mark O’Connor said: “It’s always going to be difficult for police to dismiss such cases without going there.

“We do have a lot of physical abuse cases we actually investigate and if we ever got the chance to have intervened earlier there are a lot of kids who may have never suffered serious injury.”

Mr O’Connor said the family’s details would not be passed to another agency.

“We do have that process for cases we’re concerned about but obviously the officers went there and weren’t concerned about anything.”

A police national headquarters spokeswoman said all reports were taken seriously.

Karyn Scherer: No, I don’t abuse my kids, but thanks for checking
5:00AM Tuesday August 14, 2007
By Karyn Scherer

The most extraordinary thing happened to me on Saturday night. I was not long out of my nightly dip in the spa pool with the kids, when there was a loud and unfriendly rap on the front door. “Open up,” a man’s voice boomed.

I scurried to the door in my dressing gown, somehow knowing instantly that it could only be the police, and that some drama must be occurring in our neighbourhood.

How right I was. There were three burly policemen on my doorstep, who shone a torch in my face and aggressively informed me that someone in my neighbourhood was concerned that I might be abusing my children.

Without getting too sanctimonious about it, I should explain that my neighbourhood is suburban Titirangi.

My street is an interesting mix of ages and incomes, but it’s certainly not on the list for first-time buyers. Our display of Christmas lights is one of the best in the west, and a couple of houses have recently sold for seven figures.

I was so taken aback by the accusation that all I could muster was a “Goodness me”.

I was about to ask if they were sure they had got the right house, but the appearance of my curious pyjama-clad toddlers seemed to confirm their suspicions. Or alleviate them, as it turned out.

Fortunately, my kids can do reasonable impersonations of little blond angels when it suits them, and when one of the cops explained that the alleged abuse appeared to be occurring around bed and bath time, I didn’t need to say much more.

I can only assume he had kids of his own who were less than co-operative at the end of a long day.

So they left, but without so much as a smile or a “sorry to bother you”, and now I am the talk of the neighbourhood.

I soon realised the only way I was going to be able to live this down was to rationalise it.

I should be thankful, I muttered to myself, that crime in West Auckland is not so bad on Saturday nights that three policemen don’t have time to check if people might be on the verge of murdering their children.

It’s a shame they weren’t around a few hours later when some idiots went down the entire street, twisting the windscreen wipers of all the cars parked on the road – but then as far as I know, nothing like that has ever happened in our street before, either.

But then it started to eat away at me. If I really had been abusing my kids, how would their visit have helped? They didn’t even come inside.

I can only suppose my name is on a blacklist somewhere, and if they get another call then Child Youth and Family will be notified.

I’ve a pretty good idea which neighbour it must have been.

Other children’s tantrums are somehow much harder to tolerate than your own children’s, and I can only assume they became alarmed by my 2-year-old’s world-class hissy fits.

It’s true we were once asked to leave the Auckland Museum because he was well overdue for his afternoon nap and had become tired and emotional.

He went through a phase where he would have a complete meltdown if I drove out of the driveway without collecting the newspaper.

From the moment he was born, he has been a challenge. But he does finally appear to be growing out of it.

And in the meantime I have read every child psychology book, and watched every episode of Supernanny, I’ve been able to manage, to equip myself with the tools to cope. Because I am sickened by parents who hit their children, or indeed beat them to death.

I have written editorials in favour of the anti-smacking law and I have been asked to appear on TV to present my arguments. I have bored my colleagues with my views on the matter, and I must admit I am now wondering if those who argued that the anti-smacking law would come back to bite good parents on the bum might have been right.

But I’m guessing it’s the latest wave of concern about child abuse that prompted the police to hammer on my door.

I have a Spanish teenager staying with me at the moment, who is here to learn English. He comes from a wealthy family, and I can’t help wondering what he really thinks of New Zealand, because ever since he has been here the country has been obsessed with gangs and child abuse.

The reason I mention his parents’ income is because two stints living in Rotorua have convinced me that abuse is not a racial issue – it is an economic and social one.

That’s not to say that wealthy people don’t abuse their kids, or each other. But as far as I can tell, abuse is mostly born out of the frustration that comes with poverty, a lack of education, and poor role models. Alcohol, drugs and stepfathers also seem to be common factors. In all the brouhaha about Nia Glassie, we seem to have forgotten about Coral-Ellen Burrows.

I know from experience how quickly and easily domestic situations can turn ugly. And how neighbours can be reluctant to interfere.

In the midst of all this national angst, a new couple has moved into our street. Coincidentally, their moving van turned up the same day the police turned up and the windscreen wipers got vandalised.

I had gushed to them earlier in the day what a lovely neighbourhood it was. They admitted to me the next day they were a little alarmed to see the police car in my driveway.

They are both teachers, and one of them starts work this week at our local school, which made headlines in the Herald a few weeks ago when the partner of a teacher attacked some local kids in the school grounds with an axe-head.

Is this really what middle-class New Zealand has become?

The only positive spin I seem to be able to put on it is that at least we are not in denial about our shortcomings. And in some sections of our society, anyway, people still seem to care- and act on those concerns.

But should that happen more often? I’m probably the wrong person to ask.

* Karyn Scherer is the deputy editor of The Business.

11 August 2007
The Politics of Law Making
——————————————————————————–
It is the trait of governments that don’t know what to do about a difficult problem to simply pass a law. They do this knowing that the law will not work, but at least they will be seen to be doing something. The difficulty is that not only does such knee-jerk legislation rarely solve the problem it invariably creates serious unintended consequences.

This hasty law-making also prevents genuine solutions being found as we saw last week when the government’s microchipping of dogs – a knee-jerk response to a dreadful dog attack back in 2003 – failed to prevent another child being badly mauled.

Another case in point is the “anti-smacking” bill that was recently passed by Parliament in the midst of grave concerns about child abuse following the deaths of the Kahui twins. Proponents of the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act told a disbelieving public that the law change would stop child abuse. The disbelieving public responded by saying that the people who abuse children would take no notice of the law. They said that child abusers would still abuse children but law-abiding parents would face being criminalized and would become fearful of disciplining their children.

Their pleas were ignored, even though before the 2005 election Helen Clark had publicly stated: “I do not support a ban on smacking. I’m opposed to that because I think it defies human nature”. (To view click here http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=244)

Unfortunately MMP politics changed the Prime Minister’s mind: after the election, Labour needed to support of the Greens, and the Greens wanted her to support their smacking ban. The rest is history. In spite of 80 percent of the public being opposed to this blatant piece of social engineering, the anti-smacking law – which makes New Zealand parents regulated by some of the most draconian restrictions in the world – was passed by a majority of Parliament.

Meanwhile, more and more children are being killed and maimed because the government has refused to tackle the real problem and replace the Domestic Purposes Benefit, which is not only encouraging women to have children they can’t care for, but pushes a child’s natural protector – their father – away.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a Swedish lawyer who visited New Zealand last year in order to dispel the fabrication being promoted by Sue Bradford and her supporters that child abuse had virtually disappeared in Sweden as a result of their smacking ban. Deeply disappointed that the Select Committee ignored her warnings, in her article, “Smacking – those Kiwis must be crazy!” Ruby explains that a smacking ban may only be a first step:

With 11 000 reports of “child abuse” per year and “only” ten percent being prosecuted there seemed to be a need for more stringent laws to guarantee the success of the Swedish smacking ban. So, in 1998 – 2000 the law “gross disturbance of the peace” – which initially was drafted to protect battered women – came to include child smacking. Since then parents are being prosecuted for “gross disturbance of the peace” and their children are taken into compulsory care. The difference between being prosecuted for “child abuse” and “gross disturbance of the peace” is that in the former one had to present times and dates, but in the latter the charges do not have to be substantiated.

One would hope that the government’s hastily launched domestic violence campaign – $11 million to question sick women in hospital coupled with a $14 million advertising campaign – is not a forerunner to even more Swedish inspired laws!

In her article Ruby highlights the dangerous unintended consequences of anti-smacking laws: The ideological “child protection” advocates claim that they are acting in the child’s best interest when they call for a total ban on smacking and heavy penalties for smacking parents. However, they fail to realise that they are the very ones who are exposing children to severe abuse. Normally, the vast majority of parents talk to their children and try to make them comply. A smack is usually administered when words and admonition have failed to have the desired effect. So, if a child is smacked for something that he/she did or failed to do, subjecting the parents to police investigations and subsequent social investigations and separating the child from its parents will be double punishment for the child. This will not only expose the child to severe trauma but also damage the child’s relations to its parents – maybe permanently. (To read the article click the sidebar link http://www.nzcpr.com/guest62.htm or http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/26-july-2007-ruby-harrold-claesson.html)

Dr Robert Larzelere, a leading expert on child discipline from Oklahoma State University, also came to New Zealand to try to talk sense into our politicians. He describes our new law as “the most extreme and unproven social experiment in history”.

He explains: New Zealand’s smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden’s ban in three ways. [Firstly], using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties, although the government’s politically clever but inconsequential concession gives police the discretion not to prosecute mild offences. Sweden’s ban had no criminal penalty. [Secondly], New Zealand’s bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. [Thirdly], the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents. (To read the article “New Zealand’s Anti-Smacking Law Most Extreme in the World” click here http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm#RL)

Already reports are emerging of children calling 111 to report their parents to the Police after learning about their rights at school. Given that the law has only just come into force, this is undoubtedly the tip of what is destined to become a very large iceberg! (To read the article “Boy’s 111 ‘parent assault’ call unfounded” click here http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4150344a22395.html)

Writer and economist Thomas Sowell states the obvious truth when he says, “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.” However, by repealing section 59, our government has made the job of socialising and training children to become the hard working, contributing citizens of tomorrow even more difficult.

Meanwhile a new report from the Ministry of Justice, which shows that violent crime committed by teenagers has increased by 39 percent over the last decade, should act as a warning. Rather than discouraging the disciplining of children, we should be giving parents and teachers more powers to encourage them to do all they can to ensure young people understand consequences and learn to take responsibility for their actions and their lives. (To read the report, click here http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/nz-youth-justice-statistics-1992-2006/index.html)

When governments continually introduce stupid laws and useless regulations, the end result is a general malaise within the government agencies that are charged with trying to make the unworkable work. This results in the loss of public confidence in government.

The on-going fiasco over the NCEA has damaged public trust in schools. Setting traffic fine quotas for Police has seriously undermined their role. Incompetence in Corrections has plunged public confidence to rock bottom. Dumping people off hospital waiting lists has eroded faith in the health system. The on-going and blatant abuse of benefits by people who could and should be working has undermined the integrity of welfare. The death and abuse of children who are known to the department of Child Youth and Family, continually erodes confidence in that department, and the recent scandal involving the State Services Commissioner is casting a shadow over the whole government service.

The problem is that Labour has lost sight of its purpose as a government. Governments should not be agents of social change. Instead, their role is to create a framework for citizens to prosper.

In the early days of Labour’s rule, their target was to lift New Zealand’s living standards up into the top half of the OECD. That was a very worthwhile goal. We can only look back with disappointment that they did not vigorously pursue that objective for we would have all been far better off if they had!

The poll this week asks: Do you believe New Zealand children are now more protected from abuse as a result of the repeal of section 59? And: Do you have suggestions of what should be done to stop child abuse? Go to Poll http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm

Child dialled 111 seeking help
By ESTHER HARWARD – Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 12 August 2007

Police will tomorrow arrest a man for allegedly using weapons to beat his two stepsons regularly over nine months, leaving them with bruises all over their upper body.

The Putaruru case is one of hundreds of active child abuse inquiries around the country which police say are stretching resources and causing other crimes to go uninvestigated.

Tokoroa district CIB head Detective Sergeant Kevin Verry said the man would be arrested on Monday and would face several charges.

The brothers, aged 13 and 14, and three younger siblings – who are not believed to have been abused – have been taken into CYF care.

One of the children dialled 111 to get help after schoolfriends urged him to dob the man in.

Verry says it was one of the longest periods of unreported assault on a child he had seen.

He says out of five staff, two work full-time on child abuse cases and three staff take overflow.

“I’m pretty appalled that it’s still continuing. Because of this, other investigations like burglaries have been put on the back burner because this takes priority.”

Auckland City District’s child abuse team head Detective Sergeant Phil Kirkham says his team has “more work than we can actively deal with”.

Kirkham says it is common for families of children with non-accidental injuries to draw out or block inquiries by stonewalling or lying, meaning cases could take weeks or months to come to court.

In Waitakere District Court last week a couple was charged with wilful neglect in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering to an 18-month-old boy.

The toddler is recovering from a broken leg and arm in Starship Childrens Hospital after being admitted in July. Doctors said his injuries could have been inflicted weeks before medical attention was sought.

He would have been in excruciating pain when social workers referred him to doctors. The toddler and his siblings were the subject of a care and protection programme.

Those charged with neglect were his 30-year-old biological mother and her 27-year-old partner. The Samoan couple has a “history” with police and social welfare, and blame the boy’s older siblings for the injuries.

At birth the boy was adopted by his mother’s sister. He was in her care last year when he was taken to hospital with a broken arm.

The adoptive mother, her partner, the biological mother and her partner were living together in a Ranui Housing New Zealand home at the time. All denied inflicting the child’s injuries and lashed out at authorities for taking the children into care.

The adults were told to attend anger management and parenting courses run by West Auckland community organisation The Project, but were defiant.

Programme facilitator Taliaoa Filipo Tipoai said: “They were those people who do it for the sake of doing it. They always ask, `When are we finishing? How many more classes must we do?’

“They were really angry when the department took their children. They were really angry.”

He said both couples believed no one had the right to tell them how to parent their children.

The family arrived from Samoa about three years ago.

At last week’s court appearance the lawyer acting for the biological mother and her partner asked for name suppression so friends and the church community could be told of the charges.

Josefina Fuimaono-Sapolu argued it would come as a shock to the community.

Tipoai said: “That sounds like a cop-out. If it’s not a shock to them to abuse the child why do they think it will be a shock to the community who they are?”

The pair’s interim name suppression expires tomorrow afternoon.

NZ rallies against child abuse
By New Zealand correspondent Peter Lewis

Posted Thu Aug 9, 2007 11:36am AEST

People protest outside the Rotorua District Court, after the death of Nia Glassie, a victim of child abuse. (Getty Images: Phil Walter)

Audio: NZ stages silent vigil for child abuse victims (PM) Anti-violence campaigners in New Zealand say they are encouraged by the support they received yesterday for their nationwide silent vigil against child abuse.

Many people in cities and towns across the country heeded their call to pause for a few minutes at lunchtime as a mark of respect to those killed and injured by domestic violence.

If New Zealand did not completely come to a standstill, as organisers might have hoped, it at least slowed down and acknowledged the messages of solidarity carried by those who did.

There was particular empathy on the streets of Rotorua, the home town of three-year-old Nia Glassie, who died after sustaining horrific head and abdominal injuries inflicted on her over weeks, possibly months.

Vigil observers in the town offered their thoughts on why they marked a minute’s silence.

“It’s just to try and once again encourage people to speak their hearts, you know, don’t be scared,” one said. “That’s why Nia’s where she is now, so we’re just sending out a message to encourage people to speak up.”

‘Pleading ignorance’

A small group gathered at the Auckland Children’s Hospital, where the critically injured toddler lost her fight for life last Friday.

The group included Oscar-nominated actress Keisha Castle-Hughes, who said it was time all New Zealanders – Maori and Pakeha – claimed ownership and responsibility for what is going wrong in too many families.

“I’m here to support,” Castle-Hughes said. “I think it’s a very important issue, that for a long time we’ve all kind of pleaded ignorance.

“Now I have a child of my own, it makes my heart bleed when you see stories and I think that if I can do this one little bit to support, then at least it’s something.”

Castle-Hughes says the national vigil will increase awareness of the an issue that is easy to ignore.

“I think it’s going to be good, it’s important for people to stand up and kind of just show that now that we know what’s going on, [we will] face the issue head on.”

‘Wrong message’

But other Maori believe it is time to speak up, not fall silent on the issue of child abuse.

Te Kanikani Tautoko is from a group representing social workers and other health and welfare professionals, Allies of Whanau.

“Silence is never a solution for domestic violence,” he said. “We think that it’s the wrong message to be sending out.”

“We think that a much more appropriate way of addressing the issue is to actually encourage people to talk, to discuss it amongst themselves, to play music – all these sorts of things that involve communication.

“It’s only through exchange and dialogue that these sorts of issues can be brought out into the world of light and understanding, so that it can be known and dealt with in an effective manner.”

‘Taking ownership’

One of the organisers of today’s event, Bob McCoskrie of Family First New Zealand, says for too long it has been easier to leave it up to others.

“I guess a lot of people say, ‘Does it really make any difference?’,” he said.

“I think New Zealanders, we do that a lot, we say, ‘Well does it really make a difference?’

“And I guess what we are trying to say is, ‘Yes, you can make a difference’. Everyone of us can make a difference if we start to own the problem, rather than sit back and say, ‘It’s not my race, it’s not in my area, it’s not my problem, it’s not my responsibility’.

“I guess we’re saying, ‘Well that may be true, but we need to take ownership of the problem’. I want to take ownership of the problem cause I don’t want it to happen to any child, whether they live in my area, whether they’re my race, whatever.”

That is a view shared on the streets of Rotorua.

“We can’t eliminate the problem, but we can do little things just to try and minimise it,” one resident said.

“I reckon just taking a stance like this, encouraging people to take the stand, maybe people might have the heart to do what is right.”

Whether they agree or disagree with the silent vigil, child-abuse activists want New Zealanders to do the same thing – listen.

Release on Silent Protest
Wednesday, 8 August 2007, 9:46 am
Press Release: Future New Zealand Party

Larry Baldock, Co-leader of Future NZ, and sponsor of the Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) petition said he was strongly in support of today’s silent protest over our awful child abuse in New Zealand.

“When all New Zealander’s have the opportunity to tick the box on next years ballot paper saying yes to the referendum demanding the Government ‘give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ’ they should have in mind the kind of practical and useful action outlined in Five-point action plan called for by Lobby Groups, Family First, For the Sake of Our Children Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

The only concern I have is that there is a danger of any Commission of Inquiry becoming just another useless talkfest with yet more reports on what should be done. We already know from extensive research all over the globe that family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress are key factors in all child abuse incidences.

The last thing we need is to have money wasted by the Government on their appointed officials like the Children’s Commissioner and Chief Family Commissioner being involved in an enquiry when their solution to the problem just a few months ago was to ban smacking, thereby making good parents into law breakers and the tough job of parenting even tougher!

We should be listening those experts working at the coal-face of the problem who are already working with at risk families. We need to see an immediate increase in support for the volunteers doing a great job in our communities but with little funding from the Government. It is an outrage that these organisations have to devote so much of their time and resources every year to completing mountains of application forms to seek funding for their activities.

The real answers for us as a nation lie in point 3 of the proposed action plan.
To solve the problem long term we must rebuild a strong marriage culture to reduce the number children who are growing up without the protection and nurture of their dads.

Tougher sentencing for those committing these atrocities is an important part of justice and may play a small role in reducing offences, but if we do not start teaching our young people how to have successful long term relationships with enduring marriages, we simply will not have enough prisons to contain all the violent offenders in our society.

A media based anti-‘child abuse’ campaign would be a useful shock campaign to wake all New Zealander’s up to the reality of what is occurring in our communities, but that must be followed by an equally funded nationwide positive parenting education campaign in the media to provide solutions to those who have never had decent parental role models before the stumbled into parenthood themselves.

I am confident today’s silent protest will be another useful step in addressing our social problems.

However I believe it is essential we complete the two CIR petitions to ensure that the repeal of Sue Bradford’s stupid anti-correction/smacking law and that sensible action as outlined in the 5-point action plan being promoted today is firmly on the political agenda at next years election,” he said.

Mr Baldock called on everyone concerned to achieve a long term solution to the problem of child abuse to continue the work required to complete the CIR petitions on the following questions;

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

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

ENDS

NZCPR Forum
Opinion piece by Bev Adair
4 August 07
Child Abuse, My Story

Bev Adair tells what it is like to be a child at risk

I know how it feels to have a life of apparently no value to anyone. I was born in 1952 in Otahuhu, the middle child of ten children. My Dad was European and my mother was Maori. Both were alcoholics. My mother was a street girl as well.

From my earliest years I lived with violence. I remember knives, blood on walls, being beaten, being locked up in cupboards, being molested by my Dad, being used by my mother’s men friends – she put me on show for them.

I remember sitting in the gutter outside the hotel waiting for my mother. When she finally came we used to hide down the back of the garden. We knew if Dad got home and everything wasn’t perfect then we’d all get it – especially my mother – and his hobnailed boots could make quite a dent in a body.

When I was nine, my Dad was jailed for molestation. I was taken to the Papakura police station in a car, put in a room, and given away to foster parents. I had little contact with my mother after that. I visited my father in jail and never saw him again. Abuse by foster dads followed.

All ten of us children were separated. I lived in seventeen different foster homes and attended seventeen schools. Although there was stigma in being a Maori foster child, school was mostly a good experience for me. I had some caring teachers and I did well in sport. In fact I was a netball and athletics representative for my schools and districts.

How does abuse affect a child?

I had “shame” written across my forehead. You couldn’t see it – it was hidden deep within me. I used to hide, only coming out when I felt safe. It takes a lot of the right kind of love and care to right the wrongs in the lives of abused and neglected children. They grow up into teenagers and adults but the child within them stays shamed and hurt. We must do something as a community to love this hurt and pain out of the lives of these children who are filled with heartache and shame. Our children are paying a huge price for the fact that we are ignoring those silent screams in so many of the homes in our Nation…..

“Abuse” is a dark place that eats at the heart of who you are. I could always see this young girl – me – looking up into the faces of those all around, searching for a safe place, trying to find an adult who would help me and love me in the way that a child should be loved. Something in me died back then and I have spent a lifetime trying to get back what was taken from me: my sense of value and my sense of being valuable. My father took that from me, and all of the other adults that allowed it to happen, helped to rob me as well.

I paid such a high price for the lack of a safe loving environment in which to grow up. Somebody somewhere must have seen. “Why the silence”, I have asked myself so many times. I was just a baby – why didn’t someone save me? Why wasn’t I worth fighting for? Why didn’t the adults in my home stop my mother from putting me on show and allowing her men friends to do what they did to me? Where were the Maori Elders and Whanau?

Physical and sexual abuse robs you, deep within, and you lock yourself away just to survive. You lose all sense of feeling because ‘to feel’ brings pain. You learn to hide away, never to let people get close. Your ability to trust others and believe in yourself is destroyed. You lose feeling – that’s why abused children sometimes cut themselves – it’s the only way to find out whether you are still alive. You lose the ability to love and be loved – there’s a deep cry from within that screams to be let out but you can’t because you are moving from home to home.

Seventeen foster homes. You are their foster child for a reason: they’re doing their duty; their kids need a slave; they need a companion. I was not blonde, blue eyed or cute, so I wasn’t really wanted. You learnt to comply if you wanted to stay. You had to try to be everything to everyone so they would want to keep you. But in the end you didn’t know who you were.

It’s the deep, deep pain – deeper than you can possibly express – that’s the hardest to deal with. Words cut deep. The scars heal, but the words and actions against a child, scars them for life. I had been through 17 homes and schools, terrible physical and sexual abuse, my father jailed for abusing me, divorce, the death of my daughter, loneliness, no-one to call Mum or Dad, no white picket fence, no family to love and protect me.

But then things changed and my life was never the same again. It was April 15 1973 when I had a personal encounter with God. I learnt to trust again, to realise that I am valuable, that I do have a future, that I could experience a love beyond anything that I thought was possible for someone like me. God has made the defining difference to all my choices from that day to this; my inner strength has come from that experience. ‘I AM NOT A VICTIM’. I will not allow those people to rob me anymore; they took enough of my life.

Abuse can rob us for life – or we can choose to break the cycle. That’s what I did. We have to ‘get over ourselves’, our inadequacies and insecurities – all the ‘stuff’ that life has handed to us – and for the sake of our children and the future, join together and find some real answers.

The way forward for New Zealand is to face up to the reality of what is happening. Things should have improved since my childhood but it hasn’t. Instead things have got a whole lot worse.

We have to get rid of welfare benefits – or at least have to work to receive one and then only for a set time. We have stop living in isolation and stop being so selfish. Children have to stop having children. We as a society must stand up and take ownership of what is happening.

Our communities must admit that we have a problem: we need our fathers to stand up and be fathers, and mother to be the nurturers that they were born to be.

No more welfare – get people into work and stop the drinking and the drug-taking. Our kids need adults to take responsibility for their lives and for the lives of their families. Our boys and our girls are desperate for a Mum and a Dad who will love and nurture and care for them, helping them to become all they were intended to be.

We have to stop all this PC stuff and call it like it is. Stop blaming everyone else for our problems. Instead we must look at what we can do for ourselves.

NO MORE HANDOUTS: why is it that all of the programmes that are working and making a difference in our communities are not funded (with no strings attached) by this government? Don’t they want successful programmes or would they rather spend huge amounts of money keeping the administrators employed?

I believe in personal responsibility and asking for help when needed. Our communities have to reach out to help each other and we have to intervene for the sake of our children: we can make smoking unacceptable and make sure seat belts are worn, so why can’t we make it unacceptable to form bad relationships and go from one relationship to another? Why can’t we try to make better partner choices so we can make a stable caring home for our children?

Drugs and alcohol and the break down of the family are at the heart of the child abuse problem. How many more talk fests do we have to have to wake up to that fact? I don’t believe poverty is as big an issue as we are lead to believe. It is a factor, for sure, but that’s not an excuse to harm our babies as there are countries with real poverty and they don’t brutalise their children. We have to stop making excuses; instead we have to own the problem and do something about it.

Meanwhile another child is killed and maimed; why can’t we hear the cries?

I am a Maori Mum and Nana and it tears my heart out to see the devastation and brokenness of our young people and children. We have so much going for us as a race. Like all races we have our faults, but let’s own them and not be so precious and defensive.

Please hear the cries of the children. Come on, men and women of New Zealand. Come on, elders of our tribes. Come on, the Maori Party. Come on one and all, whatever your race or creed, let’s stand up and own these problems and do something about them. Each moment we wait another one of our precious babies – born with so much potential and with such a great future – is being brutalised and damaged.

Please, please hear the deep scream of our children. The silence is deafening. Never in all of our history has it been so ‘cool’ to be Maori. Never have we been so well represented in all sectors of life. BUT WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH IT ALL?

Let’s join hands

Get off welfare

Say NO to drugs and alcohol

Create a good work ethic

Stop hiding behind our culture as an excuse for not working

Get rid of the lie that the world owes us anything

Stop the acceptance of violence in our culture

Stop the acceptance of incest

Come on Mums and Dads – be the adults you are meant to be, and if you don’t know how to parent, then find out!

Our children need adults, not best friends; they need us to be their parents not their mate…

Our children need to know their boundaries

Education must become a priority

Don’t allow the so called ‘shame’ of not being educated yourself, to stop you asking for help; your children will love you for trying…

Look at who we allow near our children

Take responsibility for our children

YOU are the primary care giver regardless of the extended family

YOU must nurture your children and make sure they have the right friends in their lives…

Our children are desperate for heroes and you as their parents should be that hero. Don’t give that away to celebrities and sports people. Sure it’s nice to have them, but have you looked closely at the lives of these so call celebrities? Have a closer look – it is you who should be influencing your child …and for good!

If you would like to comment on this issue please click http://www.nzcpr.com/letters.htm

The unspeakable question

Another Maori baby has died of abuse. Three year old Nia Glassie, the little girl who was tortured by family, finally lost her battle.

Meanwhile the 12-week-old Rotorua baby, who was rushed to Starship Hospital last weekend with suspicious head injuries, remains in hospital. The little boy’s grandfather is reported to be a senior member of the Black Power gang.

The unspeakable question on everyone’s mind is whether child abuse is a Maori problem. Given that Maori children are six times more likely to be abused than non-Maori, and that child abusers are eight times more likely to Maori than non-Maori, the facts tell us that child abuse in New Zealand is predominantly a Maori problem.

The Prime Minister and her politically correct government refuse to accept those facts. They like to blame everyone else, including neighbours. In fact, the only people who appear not to be blamed for child abuse are the abusers, with Labour having put in place a sentencing regime that sees child abusers treated more leniently that those who abuse animals.

To deflect criticism away from their failure to reduce child abuse, the government has hastily launched a controversial new programme to question all sick women in hospital about their personal relationships and sex life: Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised? Has anybody hurt or threatened you? Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t want to do?

Quite who will collect this information, who will see it, or what it will used for, has not been spelt out. Nor do we know whether this questioning represents the blatant breach of privacy laws that it certainly appears to do on the surface.

Under this $11 million feminist strategy, sick women will be asked questions that are designed to set the machinery of the state against men even though the research around domestic violence and child abuse is unequivocal: women are perpetrators, as well as men.

This week’s NZCPR guest commentator, Bev Adair, runs a communications and networking business and is passionate about her role of advocating for children and young people. Bev is a Maori woman who was brutally abused as a child. She is angry that Maori leaders have not done more to stop the abuse of Maori children, and she has bravely agreed to share her story:

“From my earliest years I lived with violence. I remember knives, blood on walls, being beaten, being locked up in cupboards, being molested by my Dad, being used by my mother’s men friends – she put me on show for them. When I was nine, my Dad was jailed for molestation. I was taken to the Papakura police station in a car, put in a room, and given away to foster parents. I had little contact with my mother after that. I visited my father in jail and never saw him again. Abuse by foster dads followed. I lived in seventeen different foster homes and attended seventeen schools”. (To read Bev’s story click the sidebar link http://www.nzcpr.com/guest61.htm)

Bev believes that not enough has been done to address the root causes of child abuse and that leadership by Maori – and by the government – is sadly lacking. If it was up to Bev, she would cut benefits to get parents and children out of the welfare trap freeing them up to get on with making something of their lives instead of being beholden to their political and tribal masters.

Last year, in response to the death of the Kahui twins, Alan Duff wrote a guest article for the NZCPR outlining why Maori abuse their children. He believes that a lack of education is a central problem: “You don’t see Maoris with university degrees beating up anyone”.

He states: “There is a disturbing anger common to far too many Maori that needs to be deeply investigated, like some permanently infected wound. Maoris dominate in gang numbers and prison inmate numbers. We have the highest number of assaults and almost exclusively own the child murder statistics. This attitude, this barbaric outlook on life will continue for the next thousand, ten thousand years if we don’t analyse it properly, if we don’t hold ourselves, our very societal model up to scrutiny”.

He describes Maori culture as being based on a “Stone Age” societal model which does not work in a modern world: “To continue with the collective, whanau, hapu, iwi societal model is a fatal mistake. A fatal mistake. For in not developing individuality we continue down the declining slope of anonymity in a collective. Of no-one willing to make decisions – especially unpopular decisions – for fear of standing out from the crowd, going against the collective will”.

And that is the core problem. Maori leadership have heralded tribalism as a cultural renaissance, when in fact it has been used to perpetrate the myth of cultural oppression and to foster separatism. In this day and age tribalism is little more than a celebration of class privilege and vehicle to unlock the riches available through the Waitangi Treaty settlement process. As a result of persisting with this outdated societal model, social dysfunction has been allowed to flourish in far too many Maori communities.

Again, as Alan Duff says: “The quality of debate in this country on Maori issues is poor, cowardly, non-analytical, and none of it serves the Maori people well. Like social welfare, which many of us have warned about for years, every government benefit takes another breath of the recipient’s self-respect away. Until they choke on self-hatred and maim and kill themselves and others”. (To read Alan’s article click here http://www.nzcpr.com/guest22.htm))

Wise Maori know that welfare is destroying their people. They know that the Domestic Purposes Benefit in particular, has been hugely damaging to Maoridom. I have been on marae after marae where the notion of abolishing the DPB and replacing it with a system that encourages work, independence and personal responsibility, finds overwhelming support.

They know that where once Maori families were once strong, the DPB has made them dangerously weak and fragmented. They know that where Maori men were once committed fathers, husbands and providers, the DPB has caused them to be rejected and cast adrift. They know that their boys – instead having a father to look up to, to teach respect for women, and to demonstrate unconditional love – are all too often turning to gangs in their search for a father figure.

According to government records, back in 1926 when the statistics on marriage were first collected, the marriage rate for Maori was 69 percent and for non-Maori, 62 percent. Over the next 50 years marriage rates increased until by 1971, the marriage rate for Maori was 73 percent and for non-Maori, 77 percent.

But the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in the mid seventies changed all that, especially for Maori. By 1981 the marriage rate for Maori had slipped to 62 percent, by 1991 it had fallen to 50 percent, and by 2001 to 46 percent. In comparison, by 2001 the non-Maori marriage rate had gradually declined to 70 percent.

It is this collapse of marriage and a dramatic rise in the DPB that is at the heart of the Maori child abuse crisis. Maori women are now heavily over-represented on the DPB, making up 41 percent of all women on that benefit. But the trend for teenage parents is even more worrying. Maori teenagers make up 55 percent of all teenage parents on the DPB, and unless this trend is turned around, the Maori child abuse crisis will get worse.

There are solutions. Other countries have faced similar problems and have replaced sole parent benefits with support systems based on getting parents into the workforce. As a result, the incidence of child abuse has fallen, long term unemployment has reduced, school drop out rates have declined and marriage has become more popular. In fact, there is no downside except the predictable political one.

Maori leaders who are genuine about wanting to turn around the child abuse crisis should band together and call for the replacement of the DPB. They should not accept anything less.

Governments like Labour depend on the support of people on welfare – the more people who are dependent on the state the better they like it. That is why their welfare reforms are only ever half hearted.

Maori leaders will have a fight on their hands to get the DPB replaced. But if they are successful, they will be responsible for saving the next generation of children from a fate that under our current system simply doesn’t bear thinking about.

Poll: The poll this week asks whether you think all women entering a New Zealand public hospital should be questioned about whether they have been subjected to abuse.
To vote click here http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm

[Comments received during the week on the column and the poll will be posted here http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=239]

Last week’s poll asked: Do you favour the introduction of policies to encourage marriage in New Zealand?
Result: 94% said Yes and 6% said No.
You can read the hundreds of comments that were submitted by clicking here http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=235

Housekeeping: Please feel free to forward this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested. A printer-friendly version is on the http://www.nzcpr.com website.

Don’t forget that we are always keen to consider publication of opinion pieces for the website Soapbox Series – why not visit the page and send in your submission.

To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here muriel@nzcpd.com .

NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based forum at http://www.nzcpr.com for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or by post at PO Box 984 Whangarei.

Are Parents Being Abused?

Listen to this short podcast by Rushdoony:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_35.php

Call for Nationwide ‘Stand’ Against Child Abuse
Monday, 6 August 2007, 11:35 am
Press Release: Family First

Call for Nationwide ‘Stand’ Against Child Abuse This Wednesday

Family First NZ, For the Sake of Our Children Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust have joined together to call on all NZ’ers to stand against child abuse this Wednesday.

They are asking NZ’ers to stop whatever they are doing – to come out onto the street, outside the office or classroom, to stop their car or truck and stand outside their vehicle – and make a symbolic ‘stand’against child abuse for three minutes at 12:12pm.

The three minutes represents the three short years of Nia’s life, and the number 12 is significant as it represents the average number of child abuse deaths each year. The three short minutes is an opportunity for each person to reflect on what each one of us can do to be part of the solution to our unacceptable rate of child abuse.

They are also requesting all radio stations to play Destiny Child’s “Stand Up For Love” during these 3 minutes. This song was the Anthem for the World Children’s Day 2005.

The three Trusts are also releasing the following statement:

Each week another New Zealand child’s precious life is extinguished or damaged because violent parents or caregivers will not meet or can not cope with their responsibilities.

We are sick and tired of doing nothing while our babies and children are being beaten and murdered.

We have allowed violent adults the right to silence, bail and parole, while babies’ rights go undefended.

We have allowed political correctness to get in the way of speaking the truth.

We have allowed a succession of policies over the last 30 years to diminish the significance of family structure.

We have allowed children to be raised in homes with an unacceptable level of violence, drug abuse, family dysfunction, and emotional and physical harm.

We are alarmed that with all the government groups, inquiries and Commissions appointed to oversee and intervene, we still have one of the worst rates of child abuse in the world.

When our families are messed up, our nation is messed up.

We call for implementation of the following 5-point Action Plan:

1. establishing a non-political Commission of Inquiry comprising community leaders who are already working with at-risk families – to identify effective and achievable solutions to child abuse, and examining specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family structure and breakdown, race-based issues, and poverty and stress.

2. immediate increase of support and resourcing of grass-root community organisations who are working with at-risk families and those attempting to stop abuse in the first place – for example HIPPY Foundation, Early Start, Family Help Trust and other early childhood home-based programmes.

3. increased investment and availability of parenting and marriage programmes such as Parents Inc, Triple P and other community based programmes.

4. media-based anti-‘child abuse’ campaign, in the same way road safety ‘shock’ campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging ‘positive’ parenting and identifying what is abuse.

5. sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially toughened to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community’s disgust with the actions of people who abuse children.

OUR CHILDREN ARE SUFFERING. NO MORE.

ENDS

The recent horrific cases of child abuse are tragic. What has happened to our country that such things can happen?

I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO A SILENT PROTEST THIS WEDNESDAY AT 12.12PM. (see attachment) WE WILL BE GATHERING IN THE RED SQUARE IN TAURANGA AT 12 NOON THIS WEDNESDAY IN SUPPORT OF THIS. PERHAPS YOU COULD ORGANISE A SIMILAR GATHERING IN YOUR AREA.

And remember to take your petition forms along with you.

Not only has the Bradford Law been a complete red herring, and waste of time in dealing with this serious issue, we now have the Government announcing they want everyone to start looking over their neighbours fence to see if there are any signs of abuse happening around us.

I believe there is some merit in suggesting that we should all be trying to take responsibility for this in our communities. However the problem is that when Parliament have been so irresponsible in failing to distinguish between appropriate discipline and abuse, we will now see neighbours reporting good parents to the authorities and the development of a secret police state climate of fear.

Our second petition calling for action that will address the REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE now becomes even more relevant. We must see the Bradford law repealed and the completion of both petitions to ensure these referendums are held at next years elections are an essential part of the strategy to make changes.

With only another 100,000 signatures required before March 1st 2008 I am confident that we can meet out target. Things have definitely slowed down over the winter months but I am sure we will see more volunteers getting active again once the weather improves and the outdoor events begin again. Events like the ‘Home Show,’ ‘Boat Show’ and other festivals give us all the opportunity to present the petitions to a crowd.

I recommend you take the time to look at Family First’s website http://www.familyfirst.org.nz and join their mailing list for up to date developments on this issue. In one of Bob’s recent updates he lists all the abuse cases that have occurred since the Amended sec 59 law was passed.

Congratulations must go to Andy Moore and his team who collected approx 1400 signatures a few weeks ago in a concerted effort in Christchurch. It is clear that there is still an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who want to sign if they are presented with the petition.

I also want to congratulate Craig Hill and his team called Unity for Liberty for their efforts.

This organisation, Unity for Liberty, has been formed assist in completing the Petitions. They have had a successful campaign “Feet on Footpaths” in Howick last week. This has the potential to be multiplied in other centres. In fact I believe there is already a plan to expand the idea in Rodney.

If you would be interested in more details contact Craig Hill at craighill@maxnet.co.nz

Warm regards everyone,
Let’s not grow weary in the battle,
Larry Baldock

Marc My Words: Child Abuse Part Of Wider Problem

Friday, 3 August 2007, 10:32 am
Press Release: Marc Alexander

Political comment
By Marc Alexander

In the wrong hands an article on child abuse could be rolled up as a weapon
If there was a standard theme throughout the last week or so, it was the issue of child abuse. Again. Yes, we are horrified by the inhumanity exposed within a family who saw fit to throw blocks of wood at three-year-old Nia Glassie in a sand-pit; strung up like a rag-doll on the clothes line; and tossed into a tumble dryer like a woolen sock. This is our outrage du jour. We’ve had them before and, despite the ridiculous optimism of Sue Bradford’s determinedly anti-family ‘Anti-Smacking legislation’ to “send a message”; it has conclusively proved its lack of worth. Abusive parents over-whelmingly ignored both her “message” and the subsequent law change. Nia’s abuser’s actions carried on unperturbed and brought to a halt by the embarrassment of being caught.

It’s easy for the mainstream to tut-tut. And boy did we! The public loves a cause –and if we can toss in as bit of Maori bashing along the way then so much the better. Unfortunately issues like child abuse can be quickly trivialized amid the simplistic sloganeering and thirty-second sound-bites demanded by our attention spans. It maybe hard to imagine, especially while we’re caught up in the maelstrom of anger and the media spotlight, but in a month most people will have moved on to other distractions. That would be a pity because our future apathy will condemn many more children to the same sorts of abuse. Our past peaks of outrage have done little to stem the abuse. Remember “Lillybing?” – killed by her family in 2000. What about Delcelia Witikia who was killed by her mother and step-father at age two? Mereana Edmonds, six, who was kicked to death by her mother? The list rolls on without us ever reaching the tipping point.

What we desperately need is perspective on what the problem is really about. Sadly our bureaucrats mistake strong words and a commitment to spend money on more useless inquiries and advertising campaigns to be the same as doing something. It’s the ‘just say no’ approach to violence which inspires no-one but the terminally naive and the criminal who take their cues by what is done rather than said. And we can safely put Helen Clark’s government in that camp because it is her administration that has not only presided over the biggest rise in violent crime ever, but also, in response, elevated a ‘tick the box’ mentality to every issue (aided by glossy brochures and feel-good homilies) to high art. What we are really left with is the substitution of result with spin to salve the public wounds. And if we can have the PM glisten with a tear of feigned emotion, well then… camera, lights, and… ACTION. We now have a photo opportunity.

We also have the mayor of Rotorua (where the latest of two cases were highlighted); who held a public talkfest to assure concerned residents that there would be answers, but then went on to say that he wanted to tackle the issues “in a generic way.”

Unfortunately the problem is far from generic. Child abuse is a persistent aspect of an overall violence within particular but easily identifiable families. But before we touch on what we should do, we need to know the extent and breadth of the problem.

The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services reported 1284 cases of proven sexual abuse cases against children as young as twelve weeks in 2002, which represented an alarming 7% increase over the previous year. What can you expect however, when Internal Affairs reported that 250 pedophiles were released just in 2003 alone, and that five child offenders are released each week?

Then there was the study which identified forty-nine per cent of school kids as having been punched, kicked, beaten or hit by other children; fifty-four per cent had been ‘ganged up on’; and three per cent were sexually molested.

All but one of the child homicides between 1998 and 2001 were at the hands of a family member. Between 1997 and 2001 two-thirds of all cases of infanticide were committed by biological mothers. Women’s Refuge claim to see over 10,000 cases of suspected child abuse a year. Meanwhile, Starship hospital reports that one child per month shows up with brain damage as a result of “non-accidental causes.”

And the violence is not confined to children but in these dysfunctional families, can often run the other way. Dawn Rangi-Smith, manager of Women’s Refuge in Timaru, has seen a number of cases where it is the children abusing the parents. Amongst examples include a mother thrown through a plate-glass window by her son, and another mother so ashamed of being beaten by her child she couldn’t even tell her own sister’s.

It’s difficult not to conclude that the rise in family abuse corresponds to a decline in the traditional family amongst those most entrenched in welfare dependency and a penchant for crime.

If we look at the difference in rates of abuse among children under 10 years old by sex, we find few differences, but at age 14-16 females are much more likely to be abused than males. In 2003, the rate of substantiated child abuse among 14-16-year-old females was 8.0 per 1,000, over twice the rate for males (3.9 per 1,000). These age and sex differences have been consistent over the last six years – see below.

Substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect, by age and sex, years ended 30 June ‘02 and ‘03
Age group Rate per 1,000 children
2002 2003
Male Female Total Male Female Total
0-4 years 7.5 7.3 7.6 7.2 7.5 7.6
5-9 years 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.9 7.7
10-13 years 6.4 8.3 7.4 6.6 8.4 7.6
14-16 years 3.7 7.4 5.6 3.9 8.0 6.0
Total 6.5 7.7 7.2 6.5 8.0 7.4
Source: Ministry of Social Development, CYRAS. Revised data for 2002

In terms of ethnic difference, Maori children are more likely than non-Maori children to be assessed as abused or neglected. In 2003, the rate per 1,000 was 11.9 for Maori and 5.9 for non-Maori. While the corresponding rates are not available for Pacific children, they are not over-represented among children assessed as abused, accounting for 11 percent of such children in 2003, about the same representation as they have in the child population – see below.

Substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect, by ethnicity and sex, years ended 30 June, 1998-2003
Rate per 1,000 children 0-16
Maori Non-Maori
Year to 30 June Male Female Total Male Female Total
1998 11.8 13.9 13.0 4.6 5.5 5.1
1999 12.3 14.3 13.4 4.5 5.5 5.0
2000 11.1 13.2 12.3 4.7 5.6 5.3
2001 9.4 10.9 10.2 4.9 6.1 5.6
2002 9.7 11.4 11.8 5.5 6.5 5.7
2003 10.8 12.5 11.9 5.1 6.5 5.9
Source: It must be noted that both 2001 and 2002 rates have been revised. Ministry of Social Development, CYRAS

While it may be tempting for some to roll out the Maori blame game, I suspect there will be no shortage of culprits to point an accusatory finger at. After all, guilt is often in the eye of the beholder. Apologists of neo-Maori tribalism will claim that colonialism is at fault, others will pin it on Maori culture, gang-culture, poverty, lack of inclusion, and/or the ever faithful standby’s of drugs, gambling or booze. Ahh…if life were only so simple.

People forget that while Maori were responsible for the torture and torment of Nia, her rescuer was also Maori. In fact it was the mother’s own sister, Louise Kuka, who stepped in to remove Nia and two of the other children (Esther, eight and Jessie, ten years old) away from the house. While i have seen many condemnations – all of which i concur wholeheartedly with – lets not also forget to applaud the actions of the sister. Now… solutions?

We need intervention not adverts – and there are a range of practical remedies on offer. First for consideration should be ensuring that privacy issues are sensibly calibrated to protect the rights of the law-abiding, not criminals. If a doctor, school-teacher or police have reasonable grounds to believe a child has been abused the police should then have access to whatever information is needed to ascertain the measure of that threat.

We can strip identified and proven abusers (including wife or husband beaters) access to their children at the time of conviction, and include a suspended sentence as a post-release condition of for life. That way even after completion of a sentence the possibility of going back to prison for even mild transgressions remain as a deterrent.

Penalties for child abuse to be increased through multiple additional charges to be served consecutively. For example in the Nia Glassie case which sparked the latest focus on child abuse, those responsible should not only be charged with assault but also with intent to kill (on the grounds that a reasonable person would ordinarily conclude that doing what they did incurred a high probability of causing death); and grievous bodily assault. Given that Nia will probably have permanent brain damage, new charges that relate to diminishing the quality of life should be introduced as well.

Those proven to have physically abused children to the extent where a sentence of incarceration is warranted should be offered sterilization either surgically or chemically.

We should dispossess our government bureaucracies of the funds they have wasted over the years with little to show for it but instead re-channel increase in funding to non-government agencies who have a proven track record of helping families most at risk. That means paring the functions of CYFS to emergency only services working with police, hospitals, schools, and NGO’s. It means dis-establishing the useless Families Commission and sending Cindy Kiro, the Children’s Commissioner on an early retirement plan. All the money saved from such bureaucratic nonsense can then be provided to where they will do the most good. Plunkett, Family Help Trust, Project Early, and all the many worthwhile organizations who do more on the smell of an oily rag that all the government appointed managers, administrators and seat fillers.

Another measure that we should introduce is ‘conditional welfare’ on all families identified as incubators of violence. It would work like this: Any parent who allows their child to play truant from school will have 20 per cent per child of their welfare payments withheld. The money will then be spent either on the new location where the child will be relocated to or, in the absence of any threat to the child’s wellbeing, on ensuring rent/electricity etc is paid.

These people do not have a right to misuse the money earned and forgone by taxpayers to help them. We can make such payments contingent on how they behave specifically in respect of their duty to look after their children. Acceptance of family payments designed to help care for children, will be held to the standard for which they were intended. Neglect therefore, will invite one the most appropriate non-government agency to decide how that money should be spent in future. Parents or guardians who blow the money on booze, drugs or gambling, can expect taxpayers to insist that their money be more wisely spent.

But as much as we want to deal effectively with abusive, dysfunctional families, we must also ensure support and increasing empowerment to conscientious and dependable families. The worst of all possible outcomes would be if good families were penalized.
So, will it work?

Certainly the last thirty years has shown overwhelmingly that removing the need to meet any obligations for welfare handouts has produced exactly the results we now decry. The relatively small number of families disproportionately responsible for much of the abuse, crime and violence have learned that what they do invite no consequences worth changing their behavior for. It has been our insistence that nothing be given in return that has given an incentive to intolerable behavior. Conditional welfare will promote the behaviors we want and keep in check those we don’t.

The problem of child abuse is part of a much wider problem of family abuse. The real tragedy is not that there are no answers but that we fail to assert them.

Ends

Child Abuse

At the time of writing, Rotorua three-year-old Nia Glassie lies in a coma at Starship Children Hospital’s Intensive Care Unit – her doctors having found it necessary yesterday to place her back on breathing support.

Following horrendous abuse – the full details of which are to distressing to repeat – Nia’s outlook is uncertain, and she is unlikely to recover unscathed.

Let it suffice to say, however, that this defenceless girl’s most serious injuries were caused by being placed in a tumble dryer and the dryer switched on – it appears her pain and humiliation provided entertainment for the people entrusted to her care, much in the same way that delinquent children torment animals.

Nia’s family situation was precarious: her mother is 34, her stepfather 17. At the same house were two siblings (since removed), her stepfather’s brother (21), his girlfriend (19) and his father. All but Nia’s mother have so far been charged in relation to the abuse.

The reaction to Nia’s case – hard on the heels of the killing of Wanganui two-year-old Jhia Te Tua, and a year after the death of the Kahui twins – has highlighted a serious lack of moral fibre in New Zealand society; while responses to Nia’s abuse have been strident, they have largely been both predictable and useless:

* Prime Minister Helen Clark condemned the assault – and her condemnation was duly published, as though it were news

* Rotorua Mayor Kevin Winters urged everyone to become nosey neighbours, and was then joined by many others in labelling this a community problem

* United Future Leader blamed Maori: “It’s time to stop pretending that the kind of child abuse suffered by Nia Glassie and the Kahui twins is not a Maori problem.”

* Sociologists even blamed Rogernomics, as though it were permissible to take one’s favourite hate object and blame it for all ills – apparently it isn’t necessary, within social science, to engage the brain at all.

The responses to this case were so predictable that online news agency Scoop’ produced an Outraged Media Release’ template – an exercise in poor taste that, nevertheless, made the point that reactions to cruelty to infants and murders of children have become a ritual. It seems that, while no one expects change, it is important to give the appearance of action.

But action, not more platitudes and reports, is what is truly required. Real action, preceded by real thought – thinking on seemingly intractable problems may be painful, but there’s no excuse for sloppy thinking when infants’ lives are at stake.

The first point to note is that the problem of violence toward children is not confined to New Zealand – a recent UN report on child well-being in wealthy nations found that the US and UK ranked lowest with respect to the well-being of their children. Statistics from New Zealand were not considered of sufficient quality to be able to make a valid comparison and, overall, English-speaking countries generally don’t seem to be doing very well.

The study also found child neglect and abuse to be more common in single-parent families than in those where both parents are present. Further, children living with a stepfather are 80 times more likely to be abused than those living with their biological father.

I don’t wish to cast aspersions on stepfathers – most of whom are committed and provide stable homes for their charges – but the risks cannot be ignored. In New Zealand risk factors ARE ignored, with the protection of the traditional family structure not even up for discussion.

The abuse and murder of the Kahui twins’ prompted the Government to set up a cross-Party working group to look at family violence. Proposed as a forum for free and frank discussion on real issues, this group – led by Labour Ministers – has become little more than a briefing session on what the Government has planned next.

Time and again I’ve tried to put the issue of welfare dependency on the agenda; each time, I’ve been unsuccessful – this issue has, it seems, been relegated to the too hard basket’.

The only answer that seems clear is that beneficiaries vote and politicians are more worried about alienating adult voters than about the safety and well-being of our vulnerable children. This is an absolute disgrace – a real attempt to solve the problems of child abuse would be prepared to look at any idea, even an ACT idea.

In the past, ACT has been accused of having welfare policies that are just too harsh. We have advocated for the minimum age of the DPB to be raised to 20, and no receipt of DPB payments unless a father’s name appears on the child’s birth certificate. Welfare dependency not only has a detrimental effect on the lives of individuals, but impacts negatively on our society as a whole. The long list of child abuse cases that we are seeing, and which continues to grow, is a direct consequence of the welfare state.

Enough is enough; the time for fiddling around the edges is over. It is time for Labour and al Parties to prove their commitment to the nation’s most vulnerable children – losing a few votes next year is a paltry price to pay for saving a child’s life.

Friday, 3 August 2007, 12:22 pm
Press Release: Family First

Anti-Smacking Law Diverting Police Resources From Real Child Abuse

The anti-smacking law is wasting valuable police time and resources when police should be focusing their energies on actual child abuse like the two recent Rotorua cases.

A Howick-Otara police family violence coordinator has highlighted a case of an 11-year-old calling 111 and complaining to the police after being corrected by his parents. The police say he had learnt about the law at school and was misinformed.

“The anti-smacking bill has placed healthy and reasonable discipline into abuse categories and police are now wasting time having to investigate complaints of what is simply appropriate and reasonable parental correction,” says Family First National Director Bob McCoskrie.

“The police should be focusing their energy on investigating drug and alcohol offences, domestic violence, violent crimes and actual child abuse, rather than being distracted by complaints from children who don’t like correction and boundaries from their parents.”

Similar cases have surfaced in Sweden including a recent case of a 6-year-old ringing the police because she was angry at her mother for not being given a handbag like her mother’s. Police time was wasted investigating the malicious claim. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/six-year-old-called-police-to-punish.html

“Although we want children to speak up when there is violence in their homes, the anti-smacking law has resulted in appropriate parental correction being interpreted as ‘parent assault’and having to be investigated. Not only are parents confused by the law, but children are too,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Good parents are being targeted by this flawed law, diverting our attention from the at-risk families we should be working with.”

ENDS

Boy’s 111 ‘parent assault’ call unfounded
By REBECCA PAPPRILL – Eastern Courier | Friday, 3 August 2007

EXPLAINING THE BOUNDRIES: Howick-Otara family violence coordinator sergeant Brett Woodmass has had calls from misinformed residents.

A boy called 111 after learning about the new child discipline regulations at school.

The 11-year-old turned to police fearing he was assaulted by his parents, but it turned out that he was being disciplined.

“He was engaging in offensive and obstructive behaviour and his parents intervened with reasonable force,” Howick-Otara family violence coordinator sergeant Brett Woodmass says.

“The boy said he had learnt about the law at school and I believe he was misinformed,” he says.

A few calls to police related to Section 59 of the Crimes Act reveal some residents are confused over the new regulations.

Mr Woodmass says there have been calls that police normally would not have.

“A father of a child didn’t like his sister-in-law smacking his child on the hand,” he says.

“It was deemed reasonable to minimise the child’s actions to prevent potential harm.”

The police investigate every case and still have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against the parent.

“Until a case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the courts,” Mr Woodmass says.

The legislation update states that parents are legally allowed to use reasonable force to ‘control’ their child to protect them or other people from harm; to prevent the child committing a crime or engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour; and to perform the normal daily tasks of good care and parenting.

But it is illegal for parents to use force to ‘correct’ children.

There will no longer be a defence for parents or care-givers charged with assaulting their children who claim that they were using reasonable force to correct their children?s behaviour.

As children get older, the use of reasonable force will become less justifiable.

Factors that are considered are the age and maturity of the child, ability of the child to reason, characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health and circumstances that led to the use of force.

Mr Woodmass says when using force the parent must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts to justify their force.

District family violence coordinator Tim Smith says he has appointed staff to collect data of incoming calls related to the bill in the Counties Manukau area.

He says towards the end of August he may have an idea of how the changes to the bill have affected the community.

Changes to the the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005 were passed through Parliament on May 16 this year and came into force on June 22.

Garth George: Weak, stupid responses to the evil of child abuse
5:00AM Thursday August 02, 2007
By Garth George

The merciless abuse of two Rotorua tots is not a scandal. That is far too mild a word to describe such atrocities.

Nor is it enough to call these a national disgrace or national shame. They are both, but the nearest anyone has come to an adequate description is Michael Laws who, writing on Sunday, described them as “evil”.

He is right, but I’ll go further: they are positively satanic, for only the Prince of Darkness could so corrupt a society that it could breed Homo sapiens who get sadistic pleasure in torturing and injuring their own young.

And take it from me, the Devil is just as alive and kicking today as he was in Old Testament times. He remains, after all, the prince of this world. What is a scandal are the nonsensical knee-jerk reactions of politicians and others and the ideas they come up with.

This has happened before several times, the last the furore that followed the deaths last year of the Kahui twins. But as Peter Dunne says, all that has been achieved is “a large amount of hand-wringing and navel gazing”.

The stupidity of the Government’s first initiative is almost incomprehensible. It proposes to have all women visiting public hospitals asked about family violence. What that hopes to achieve is beyond my grasp.

Acting Social Development Minister Steve Maharey says frontline health workers in hospitals will try to find out whether there is violence in a family and whether any kind of assistance can be given.

This is preposterous, and if those frontline health workers have a grain of sense they will not have a bar of it.

Otherwise, they’ll wear it, for I can imagine the reaction of a number of my female friends if they were asked such a question when turning up at accident and emergency for treatment, for instance, of a cut finger.

And imagine what such questioning might do to a woman who has been admitted to hospital having been diagnosed with a dread disease and who is in a state of acute anxiety, fear or even shock?

In any case, the last thing the very women who are targeted by this absurd proposal are going to do is to admit to anything to someone they don’t know and probably don’t trust.

And rightly so. To whom do these inquisitive front-line health workers report if their suspicions are aroused? To some social worker, perhaps, who might misconstrue the patient’s responses and try to interfere when no interference is necessary?

What about privacy concerns? Are communications between patients and medical professionals no longer privileged?

Meanwhile Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro throws up her hands in horror and rabbits on about the need for educational programmes. Which is all very well, except that the sort of mental retards who abuse and kill children are ineducable.

Then there’s the Maori issue, for there are five times as many Maori children abused and killed each year than in any other ethnic group.

Maori Party leader Pita Sharples whines that he feels ashamed and guilty over these latest abominations but in the next breath insists – in spite of all the evidence – that child abuse among Maori is not a problem that can be reduced to ethnicity.

Wrong, Dr Sharples. If Maori are killing Maori children then it could well be an ethnic problem and it is time that he and the entire leadership of the Maori race took ownership of it.

Maori activists are always crying out to be allowed to find Maori answers to Maori problems. Well, here is one of the biggest problems facing Maori today and their leaders had better get off their butts and find some answers.

And I mean answers, because all we have seen up to now is the usual – trying to apply sticking-plaster solutions to symptoms instead of diagnosing and organising treatment for the causes. These are always much more difficult and expensive to treat but, that aside, the trouble is that most of those in political, social and ethnic leadership wouldn’t recognise the root causes if they jumped up and bit them.

Things like the breakdown of families (whanau included), neighbourhoods and communities. Poverty and welfare dependency running from generation to generation. An exploitive low-wage economy. A nanny state that interferes with parenting. A disinclination to enforce the laws on school attendance. A drinking age that’s too low and a drug supply that seems to grow exponentially. Continuous sex and violence on television and in movies. And a public morality that says anything goes, including open-slather abortion.

Band-Aid solutions not enough on child abuse
Tuesday, 31 July 2007, 11:39 am
Press Release: Gordon Copeland

Independent MP Gordon Copeland believes that the Government’s Band-Aid approach to child abuse represents a massive policy failure that needs to be changed and fast.

“When it comes to child abuse the evidence clearly points to the root cause as being the break down of the family unit,” said Mr Copeland.

“Fatherlessness is now endemic in New Zealand and nowhere more so than amongst Maori. Some 55% of all Maori children are in fact growing up without a dad at home. That needs to change.”

“It is actually hard to think of a recent child abuse case in New Zealand where the offender was the biological father of the child. Typically the abuse is carried out by a male who is the boyfriend of the child’s mother.”

“We need a fence at the top of the cliff approach. Ideally this would involve government subsidies for courses addressing fatherhood, marriage preparation, marriage enrichment and parenting courses across the spectrum from prenatal to teenage years.”

“Courses need to be delivered at the grass roots level and specifically targeted to reach those who most need them; especially young Maori males.”

Cut…

“The overarching policy goal should be a total transformation of family life in New Zealand so that all children are raised in a safe, loving and caring environment – ideally by a married couple.”

“All of this is really just commonsense. It was clear to practically everyone except the ideological zealots that Sue Bradford’s Smacking Bill would have absolutely no impact at all on the rates of child abuse in New Zealand. The Bill is trite and superficial in the extreme and it is time to look at evidence based policies which get down to the underlying realities if New Zealand’s shameful record on child abuse is going to be changed.”

ENDS

Abused children expelled from kindy for violence
By KATHY WEBB – The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 31 July 2007

Some abused children are becoming so violent they are being expelled from kindergarten or infant classes at school, a Hawke’s Bay paediatrician says.

Russell Wills, the clinical director of maternal, children and youth health at Hawke’s Bay Hospital, said the effects of violence against children and their mothers went much deeper than physical injuries.

“The focus is on shaken babies and broken bones,” he said.

That was serious enough, but a wider and deeper problem was emerging, that of violent children unable to trust adults or relate to other people.

He was dealing daily with children who had developed severe psychological problems that became permanent if not treated while they were infants or toddlers.

“By the time a child is 10 you’ve missed the boat.”

It was becoming common for children to be expelled from kindergarten or the first two years of primary schooling, Dr Wills said.

Their parents were often poor, estranged from their own families, with little support and few parenting skills.

Violence was often the only way they knew how to react.

That spilled over into hospital wards, where parents fought and fathers threatened staff, Dr Wills said.

In one week he had had to have two fathers kept from the serious care baby unit and the children’s ward.

Hawke’s Bay health board’s development of a strategy to tackle the region’s high rate of child and domestic violence had worked so well that levels of reporting had rocketed.

Dr Wills expected 2500 Hawke’s Bay youngsters would be referred to social welfare services this year, 300 of them by the hospital.

Staff had been trained to identify abuse and ask direct questions about it.

“There’s a 50 per cent likelihood that if Mum is being beaten, the kids are, and if the kids are being beaten, there’s a 50 per cent chance Mum is too.”

Domestic violence referrals had increased from 40 a year to 120 as a result of directly confronting women.

The strategy, called the Hawke’s Bay Family Intervention Programme, had proven so successful it is to be launched nationwide tomorrow by the Health Ministry.

The Napier-based Sensible Sentencing Trust announced yesterday it was creating a unit within its ranks to push for zero tolerance and tougher jail sentences for child abusers.

Spokesman Garth McVicar said jail terms for people killing or abusing their children had been woefully inadequate.

“Our children are unable to defend themselves and Parliament seems to have put this problem in the too-hard basket, and judges are ignoring the public’s cry for deterrent sentences to protect our children,” he said.

What can be done about NZ’s child abuse problem?
1:26PM Monday July 30, 2007

Your Views

What do you think of Labour’s chances of being re-elected?
Should players questioning referees at the World Cup be penalised?

Send us your views

The Prime Minister has today voiced her concern over the grave issue of child abuse.

A second Rotorua child – a 12-week-old baby – is in the Starship with suspicious head injuries.

What can be done to solve the country’s escalating child abuse problem? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:

Let the New Zealand Herald know your views here and read online others views:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=10454649

Each week another New Zealand child’s life is extinguished or damaged because violent parents or caregivers will not meet or can not cope with their responsibilities.

We are sick and tired of doing nothing while our babies and children are being abused and murdered.

When our families are messed up, our nation is messed up.

Please forward this letter to as many people as possible

Read what happened to little 3 year old Nia from Rotorua who lies in Starship Hospital at the moment

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/nia.html

Read what happened to 3 year old Ngati from Otara, and the pathetic punishment his mum and step-dad received

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/ngati.html

Read a 5 point action plan, designed to get the problem away from Politics and political agendas, and into the hands of local communities and organisations.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/5_point_action_plan.html

YES! You can do something…

1. Download and print off the petition forms demanding a Referendum on Child Abuse , and opposing the politicians’ response to child abuse of criminalising good parents!

Pass it around the office, neighbourhood, church, community organisation – and send it in as soon as possible.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/CIR%20MAY07.doc
or
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

MAKE CHILD ABUSE AN ELECTION ISSUE IN ‘08!

Don’t let it be ‘swept under the carpet’ like the Kahui case.

2. Please forward this letter to as many people as possible

Our silence is deafening and our children are suffering.

No More.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |

5-Point Action Plan to Tackle Child Abuse

Family First NZ has released a 5-point Action Plan to tackle the high rates of child abuse in NZ.

“The recent Rotorua case which has shocked the nation, in a similar way to the Kahui case, highlights the need for drastic action in this area,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

The Action Plan includes:

1. establishing a non-political Commission of Inquiry comprising community leaders who are working with at-risk families to identify causes of child abuse and effective solutions, and examining specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, race-based issues and poverty in these high rates.

2. an immediate increase of support and resourcing to grass-root community organisations who are working with at-risk families attempting to stop abuse in the first place – for example HIPPY Foundation, Early Start, Family Help Trust and other early childhood home-based programmes

3. an increased investment in parenting organisations such as Parents Inc and other community based positive parenting programmes.

4. a media-based anti-child abuse campaign, in the same way road afety ‘shock’ campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging ‘positive’ parenting and identifying what is abuse

5. sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially increased to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community’s disgust with the actions of people who abuse children.

“Desparate times call for desparate actions,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The Children’s Commissioner denies the need for an Inquiry yet the best she can offer is a ban on smacks and wasting time and resources ‘auditing’ good families. Meanwhile the horrendous abuse continues.”

“And the politicians, by spending so much time and energy on section 59 have also shown that they are unwilling and unable to deal with real causes of child abuse. Their cross-party committee to tackle child abuse after the Kahui case self-destructed.”

“Child abuse is greater than any political agenda, will require a huge amount of honesty, and must be owned and solved by New Zealanders.”

“Our silence and inaction has been killing us. No more.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Rankin calls for an ‘Honest Debate On Child Abuse
Friday, 27 July 2007, 2:24 pm
Press Release: For The Sake Of Our Children
‘Children’s Advocate’ Christine Rankin calls for an ‘Honest and Courageous Debate on Child Abuse’

Media Release
27 July 2007

Christine Rankin, CEO For the Sake of our Children Trust and Family First NZ agree that there should be an independent Inquiry into child abuse in New Zealand.

“I’m absolutely sick of it,” says Christine Rankin, CEO of For the Sake of our Children. “When you’re in the kind of arena we’re in, you wait week by week for this to happen again. You can almost count on it now.”

“It seems we can’t take it seriously. We get very upset by high-profile cases like this Rotorua case and the Kahui’s, but there’s a barrier that means we can’t talk about the real issues – that barrier is political correctness.”

“The real issues are being masked. Maori feature hugely in the child abuse statistics, yet this fact is something that we’re not allowed to talk about and when I’ve raised this issue before, I’ve been accused of being racist.”

“I’m not racist. I’m simply stating the facts. Are we honest enough to tell the truth?”

“Approximately 60% of child abuse is in Maori families yet they represent only 15% of the population.”

Rankin questions why Maori leaders aren’t speaking up more strongly on this issue.

“They are leaving a legacy to their people and to this country – they deny that it is a real issue, talk around it, and any Maori leader who speaks up on this seems to quickly withdraw from their strong and courageous stance. Why won’t they fight this issue?”

“There are also no repercussions for child abuse. The recent sentencing of an Otara couple to four years each for beating a child to death is disgraceful. There is no responsibility and no consequences.”

The OECD and CYF reports consistently identify drug and alcohol abuse, and family breakdown as key contributors to child abuse. There are no consequences for these irresponsible thugs who cause untold suffering to our children.

“The anti-smacking bill was never going to make a difference. These abusers don’t even know about section 59 and they don’t care anyway. Child abuse had no relevance to the smacking law.”

Christine Rankin is asking for an independent Inquiry on child abuse – separate from political agendas and correctness – and comprising community leaders who are willing to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.

ends

Calls for Independent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

Family First NZ is joining with For the Sake of our Children Trust in calling for an official Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ.

The call comes after the horrific case of a Rotorua child fighting for her life as a result of abuse by her step-father and other household members.

“The ban on smacking was simply an admission by politicians that they could not and would not tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by recent CYFS and UNICEF reports,” says Bob McCoskrie of Family First.

“The 80% plus of NZ’ers who opposed Bradford’s bill are not people who were demanding the right to “thrash and beat” children as suggested by Helen Clark. They were simply kiwis who were exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed child welfare groups were more interested in targeting good parents and light smacking than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty, and weak family ties.”

“The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues. It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions.”

“An Otara couple who could be out of prison in only four years for the recent horrific abuse of their three year old shows that we simply aren’t placing enough emphasis and resources on sending a clear message to child abusers that their actions are unacceptable. These type of people probably think section 59 is the main road into Wellington.”

Since the passing of the amendment to section 59, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases including:

June 2007

* Porirua mum and step-father charged with mistreating 3 children, including 5 year old admitted to Wellington Hospital with serious head injuries

* 16 month old Remuera boy dies after beating while in care of relative

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

* Death of 22 month old Tokoroa girl from severe burns – being cared for by step-father. Claims was burnt in hot shower but 17 hour delay before arriving at hospital. Still under investigation.

July 2007

* Hawkes Bay father shoots daughter with air rifle. Convicted and jailed for 6 months

* Christchurch mum-of-two found at P Lab. Charged with failing to provide necessaries of life and allowing home to be used for manufacturing P

* 3-year-old Rotorua girl seriously ill after 3 weeks of abuse by stepfather and extended family

“This latest case is yet another wake-up call, following on from the high-profile Kahui case, 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 would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Very truly yours
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney at law
President or the NKMR/NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org

The Empresses’ new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!

One year ago, I travelled 36 hours from Gothenburg, Sweden to Auckland at the invitation of the Section 59 Coalition. I came to testify at the Parliamentary hearing on the private member’s Bill that proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and to inform – and to warn – the general New Zealand public of the effects of the Swedish smacking ban.

When I left New Zealand after my two-week stay, I was hopeful that the bill would not pass because over 80 % of the population was not in favour of it. I had also thought that New Zealand was a democratic country that respected the will of the people. My warnings were backed by my presentation of 30 of the court cases that I have collected for my coming PhD thesis on the Swedish anti-smacking law. These show how parents were prosecuted and sentenced to fines or prison and their children were taken into forcible public care and separated from them and placed in foster homes. But it all fell on deaf parliamentarian ears. My hopes were finally crumbled in May when the compromise was reached and the bill became law because the MPs were forced to vote against their consciences. Fortunately, a few MPs with high integrity refused to vote for the law: one even resigned from his Party because of it.

New Zealand has made a historical mistake by following Sweden’s example to ban smacking. New Zealand’s law has gone even farther than Sweden’s in that it prescribes criminal penalties for smacking parents and the Children’s Commissioner cheered – just like the crowds did at the Emperor’s new clothes. The Swedish law doesn’t prescribe criminal penalties, but Parliament was informed that the new law would be sanctioned by the provisions of the Penal Law. And so it has been.

Remember, the anti-smacking law was not delivered to mankind on slabs of stone as one of the Ten Commandments. It was imposed by the Swedish social engineers. So, the fact that Sweden repealed its equivalent to Section 59 does not justify New Zealand repealing its own. In a TV-debate on July 19, 2006, Sue Bradford said that it was irrelevant to discuss Sweden. However, it is quite obvious that no one can discuss imposing a smacking-ban on a country without taking Sweden – the pioneer – into account. Also, the British Parliament engaged in similar legislative procedure in 2004. It resulted in the Lester amendment, which is called the “fudge”. The Lester amendment is deemed as a progression towards a total smacking ban. However, England is facing a re-think. In an article in The People, July 8, 2007, Tory children’s minister Tim Loughton said: “The present law is unworkable nonsense – it just criminalises parents. We need to clearly define the line between chastisement by parents as they see fit and violence towards children.”

While the Swedish parliament may have been in good faith in repealing their equivalent to Section 59 and consequently passing the anti-smacking law despite the warnings of important judicial organs, the NZ parliament cannot be deemed to have acted in good faith. Both Dr Bob Larzelere and I informed them of the disastrous consequences that the Swedish anti-smacking law has had for children, families and the society as a whole.

The NZ anti-smacking lobby claims that repealing Section 59 will stop child abuse. They also claim that Swedish children are safer and that only one child every four years dies from abuse in Sweden. These claims have been proven mendacious so, imposing a smacking ban with reference to Sweden’s “low mortality rates” shows that they have failed to note that homicide rates indicate only the extreme cases of child abuse. How often does one hear of ‘death by a smack’? Homicide rates are not the same as rates of supposed harm by smacking. And, the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act will not change the situation for children who are subject to abuse.

Not even the blanket prohibition against smacking that was passed in 1979 has prevented child abuse in Sweden. In fact, assistant professor Hans Temrin at the University of Stockholm has shown in two separate press releases, the latter of which was published in May 2006, that 258 children in Sweden died at the hands of their parents or guardians between 1965 – 1999. Incidentally, those figures do not include children who have died while in state care, for e.g. Daniel Sigström (1992) or Felicia Pettersson (2005). A little reminder: in Sweden, in January – February 2006 three children under the age of ten died at the hands of their parents and in May a 12 yr-old girl was murdered by her step-father.

You may wonder what the reason is for my involvement in the New Zealand smacking debate. Well, Sweden was the first country to ban smacking so it is cited as the model to follow. In my capacity as a lawyer in Sweden, researcher on the Swedish anti-smacking law (PhD) and president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) for the Protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries , I have close-up experiences of the that law. I find that Sweden is the model to avoid – at all costs.

Parenting vs child abuse
Here’s why:
1 – society accepts that parenting, by definition, embraces a corrective role. Sweden, that prides itself in being the first country in the world to abolish physical punishment – smacking – of children, removed the plea of “reasonable force” in 1957. Sweden has thereafter taken further steps to “protect children” from “abuse” and in 1979 the “Anti-smacking law”, which was promulgated in the Parent and guardianship Code, came into force. Smacking was equated to “child abuse”. Several state organs that gave opinions warned against the law. They invoked the indoctrination to violence that children meet in films and in the media and also the administrative violence that children and their parents would be subjected to because of the totalitarian nature of the law.

Despite the fact that Parliament had been informed that the law would be sanctioned by the provisions of the Criminal Code, the information given in the English summary promised that no parents would be prosecuted because of the law. This was reiterated in similar words to the international audience in Paris when the law was presented to the world stating that the law does “not represent an extension of the punishable area”. However, the first prosecution for minor incidents occurred already in 1978 – prior to the passing of the law. Swedish statistics published in February 2007 show that there has been a 14% increase in child abuse despite the smacking ban, with 11 000 reports of “child abuse” per year in Sweden. There are claims that “only” ten percent are prosecuted. Yet, the Swedish and New Zealand lobbies and their experts and statisticians claim that the Swedish smacking ban is extremely successful, and that polls show that only a minor percent of Swedish parents smack their children.

With 11 000 reports of “child abuse” per year and “only” ten percent being prosecuted there seemed to be a need for more stringent laws to guarantee the success of the Swedish smacking ban. So, in 1998 – 2000 the law “gross disturbance of the peace” – which initially was drafted to protect battered women – came to include child smacking. Since then parents are being prosecuted for “gross disturbance of the peace” and their children are taken into compulsory care. The difference between being prosecuted for “child abuse” and “gross disturbance of the peace” is that in the former one had to present times and dates, but in the latter the charges do not have to be substantiated.

Smacking = child abuse?
2 – In my capacity as legal practitioner in Sweden , researcher and president of the “Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) for the Protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries”, I have seen the effects of the anti-smacking law on children and their families. Because of my first-hand knowledge of the Swedish system, I was approached by two persons from separate parts of NZ who had found the NCHR’s web site and I have now been engaged in the Section 59 debate for the past two years. I made both a written and an oral submission to the Section 59 Select Committee. My oral submission was accompanied by 32 case summaries in English and 30 photocopies of verdicts, summary judgements and newspaper or other articles in Swedish.

Discipline in Sweden has become a word that is despised and equated with child abuse. It is a very extremist view and one that should be examined carefully. In his book “Basic theory of Psychoanalysis” Robert Waelder wrote the following:
“… a psychoanalytic approach to upbringing does not mean that children should get what they desire when they desire something; instead it demands an attempt to find a suitable balance between satisfaction and disappointment in every situation … we have to find the optimal combination of two equally important but partly opposite ingredients for a healthy development, namely, love and discipline; to love without spoiling and to discipline without injuring.”

In his paper “Combining Love and Limits in Authoritative Parenting: A Conditional Sequence Model of Disciplinary Responses” published in 2001, Dr. Bob Larzelere finds that several research programs have shown that optimal parenting combines love and limits – not pitting both ingredients against each other.

UN and Unicef Directives
In May 2006, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who is married to a Swedish woman, thus his interest to promote the Swedish agenda, issued directives that every country in the world should impose anti-smacking laws. Kofi Annan, also known for his non-intervention in the Rwandan massacre, has completely ignored the gross injustices being perpetrated because of the Swedish anti-smacking law; that thousands of families have been – and are being – destroyed by unnecessary state interventions and that parents are afraid to correct their children. To implement his directives, Kofi Annan appointed the Portuguese professor, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, to lobby all governments in the world “to offer children the same protection under the law that adults have”. This is a most interesting phrase, because UNCROC in its preamble stipulates for the protection of children as follows: “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Sweden fails grossly to meet up to that requirement for ca 30 000 unborn children per year. The New Zealand figures are 18 000.

The ideological “child protection” advocates claim that they are acting in the child’s best interest when they call for a total ban on smacking and heavy penalties for smacking parents. However, they fail to realise that they are the very ones who are exposing children to severe abuse. Normally, the vast majority of parents talk to their children and try to make them comply. A smack is usually administered when words and admonition have failed to have the desired effect. So, if a child is smacked for something that he/she did or failed to do, subjecting the parents to police investigations and subsequent social investigations and separating the child from its parents will be double punishment for the child. This will not only expose the child to severe trauma but also damage the child’s relations to its parents – maybe permanently. So, those Kiwis (MPs) must be crazy!

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Lawyer, President of the NCHR/NKMR.

1 Larzelere’s parting comments http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00223.htm
2 Was the Lester amendment really necessary? By Kay Ma. Dissertation 2005.

3 Hans Temrin “Styvföräldrar misshandlar oftare barn till döds”, DN May 12, 2006
4 Kathryn Rich claimed that I am “a fruit loop”. See Prof Jacob Sundberg’s letter to Kathryn Rich http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/letter-to-kathryn-rich-from-jacob-wf.html and his letter to Deborah Coddington, http://www.nkmr.org/english/coddington_letter.htm

5 14% Increase in Child Abuse despite Swedish Smacking Ban, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm
6 “Anti-smack campaign fails to pack a punch” quotation, Christian Diesen. Note in the article that Diesen wants more parents to be prosecuted.
7 I am not a member of the Swedish Bar Association, a fact that Sue Bradford and her “child protection” lobby, unknowledgeable of the Swedish system, tried to make a big affair of in their attempts to discredit me because of my criticism of the Swedish anti-smacking law. Cf Note 4 supra.

8 Waelder, R IUP, New York, 1964
9 http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html
10 European Report: Mummy and Daddy spare rod – or go to court http://www.corpun.com/eud00002.htm

21 July 07
NZCPR Weekly – Topic: Welfare
Breaking Through
Muriel Newman

Breaking Through

Early last year a little boy was brutally beaten to death by his mother and her partner:

“The child’s blood was also found throughout the house. In two rooms – the living area and his bedroom – the blood had splattered so high it hit the ceiling”.

Graphic photographs taken during his post-mortem showed three year old Ngatikaura Ngati’s body had suffered repeated beatings. His left arm was so badly damaged that it had swollen to twice its normal size. When pathologists cut it open they found all the tissue had already died from the beatings he had suffered.

The investigating Police Officer Richard Middleton said, “This is as bad as anything I have seen on a child or any human”.

Ngati’s mother had given him to childless relatives when he was a month old. They raised him as their own. But shortly after his third birthday, his mother wanted him back: “she was claiming a benefit for more children than were living with her and she was afraid of being caught out”. Three months later, the little boy was dead. (See From Happiness to Hell, Herald>>>) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10439204

This shocking case highlights the malevolent nature of child abuse in New Zealand – a vicious crime committed by a mother and her partner who were so hungry for benefit money that they placed their dependency on government welfare above the safety and happiness of their child.

For that reason, the second defendant in this case – and in most other child abuse cases in New Zealand – should be the State. The worst child abusers in this country are the government which has knowingly cemented in place social policies that create the environment for child abuse to flourish. Their social welfare policies lead to the disintegration of marriage, family and community as benefit recipients become hooked, realising that they are significantly better off if they stay single and on welfare.

Through unconditional state handouts to vulnerable women with children, whole communities have been created where the two-parent family has vanished, where work is rare or non-existent, and where social degradation – squalor, alcoholism, drugs, violence, crime – is commonplace.

Just last week, the Herald on Sunday reported on child abuse cases at Auckland’s Starship Hospital, stating that last year’s child abuse admissions were the worst on record. It also claimed that the figures for head injuries for Maori children are the highest in the world. (See Doctor Decries Staggering Level of Child Abuse>>>)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10451548&pnum=0

Yet the Government’s response to this national crisis is a shameful silence.

In contrast, the Howard Government in Australia has invoked a state of emergency to deal with their child abuse crisis – which is at a level similar to ours. They have introduced controls on dysfunctional families that include compulsory health checks on all at-risk children, linking benefit payments to school attendance, and quarantining 50 per cent of welfare payments to ensure that funds are used for children’s welfare, not booze, drugs or gambling.

The opposition Labour Party, recognising the seriousness of the problem, has pledged to put in place even tougher measures if they become the government, withholding all welfare payments from families that do not do the right thing by their children.

New Zealand remains the only country in the world that has wide open access to the sole parent benefit. Here, girl can get pregnant as teenager and literally have a benefit income for life. She can remain on the Domestic Purposes Benefit just so long as she doesn’t work, doesn’t marry, and from time to time has another baby to keep her eligibility current.

Yet life on a benefit is the very worst incentive that any government could possibly dangle in front of vulnerable young girls as it creates a perilous home environment for their children. Maori girls in particular are susceptible to the government’s anti-marriage welfare ‘bait’ with figures from the Ministry of Social Development showing that Maori teenage parents are on a benefit at a rate of 85 per 1,000, more than eight times higher the non-Maori rate of 10 per 1,000.

Just last week the Ministry of Social Development released a report showing that the number of children living in financial hardship in New Zealand has – incredibly – almost doubled in two decades from 12% in 1982 to 23% in 2004, with sole parent households with children being by far the worst off. (see MSD Hardship Report>>>) http://www.cyf.govt.nz/documents/Child_death_from_maltreatment.pdf

That is why the government’s refusal to fundamentally reform welfare, in order to move sole parents off benefits into supported work and a decent life, borders on being criminally negligent.

In contrast to a situation here, politicians in the US took action over a decade ago: “The designers of welfare reform were concerned that prolonged welfare dependence had a negative effect on the development of children. Their goal was to disrupt intergenerational dependence by moving families with children off the welfare rolls through increased work and marriage… Ten years after welfare reform became the law those who have enjoyed the greatest benefits are the most disadvantaged single parents with the most significant barriers to employment. In particular, young, never-married mothers with low levels of education and young children”. (see The Impact of Welfare Reform by the Heritage Foundation>>>)http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm

Figures from Statistics NZ confirm the dramatic move in New Zealand away from childbearing within marriage. Historically, only around five percent of babies were born outside of marriage. But largely as a result of the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in the seventies, the trend changed and by 1990 the rate had increased to 35 percent. As of last year, 47 percent of all babies born in New Zealand were born outside of marriage, which means that almost a half of all newborns in this country are being born into family structures that put them at an increased risk of child abuse.

That is not to say that all children born into de-facto relationships will be harmed; of course they won’t. Nor that all sole parents do a bad job; on the contrary many do an exceptional job and raise great kids. But just as there are no guarantees that children raised in two-parent married families will be happy and safe, on the balance of probability married families represent the safest of all environments in which to raise children, with un-married families the most dangerous.

Encouraging marriage is the approach that has now been taken by legislators in the United States in order to improve the outlook for children. It is also the conclusion that has been reached in “Breakthrough Britain: Ending the Costs of Social Breakdown”, a new report produced by the British Conservative Party’s Social Justice Commission. This report, which builds on last year’s “Breakdown Britain”, finds that the breakdown of the two-parent family and the decline of marriage is at the heart of the collapse of values in British society. It proposes a number of strategies to strengthen families and encourage marriage through adjustments to the tax and benefit systems. (see Breakthrough Britain>>>)http://87.106.6.204/default.asp?pageRef=182

The report also discusses the significant contribution made by the voluntary sector, which works at the coalface of social dysfunction, and it recommends that it be liberated from the domination of state control.

According to this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Peter Allen, who founded and headed the Prince of Wales Trust, the situation here in New Zealand is dire:

“During my eleven years of involvement with some of the country’s most complex young people I saw many valuable youth initiatives destroyed by the government’s youth policies and bureaucratic pressure. Unfortunately their loss is becoming increasingly apparent as we see more youth crime, assaults on elderly people, property damage, theft, drunken behaviour, increased drug abuse and more truancy from school than ever before”.

He goes on to warn, “This Government’s destructive social policies have created divisions between cultures, within families, and across communities, and until there is a full realisation that the problems are politically motivated – and the people of this country demand appropriate action – the situation will continue to deteriorate”. (To read Peter’s article “The Bureaucratic Destruction of Private Sector Youth Support Services” click the sidebar link>>>) http://www.nzcpr.com/guest59.htm

Peter is right. Many of the complex social problems that we face in New Zealand – like the dreadful child abuse crisis – are being caused by politically motivated government policy. But until the public demands action, there will be no breaking though and as sure as night follows day, more and more innocent children like little Ngatikura Ngati will die.

Poll: The poll this week asks whether you would favour the introduction of policies to encourage marriage in New Zealand.
To vote click here>>> http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm

[Comments received during the week on the column and the poll will be posted here>>>]
http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=233

Last week’s poll asked: Should the welfare reform proposed by the Howard Government in Australia should be adopted in New Zealand?
Result: 96% said Yes and 4% said No.
You can read the hundreds of comments that were submitted by clicking here>>>. http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231

Housekeeping: Please feel free to forward this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested. A printer-friendly version is on the http://www.nzcpr.com website.

Don’t forget that we are always keen to consider publication of opinion pieces for the website Soapbox Series http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm – why not visit the page and send in your submission.

To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>. muriel@nzcpd.com

NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based forum at http://www.nzcpr.com for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or by post at PO Box 984 Whangarei.

EXCLUSIVE: SMACKING PARENTS WON’T FACE PRISON
EXCLUSIVE Human rights ‘farce’ faces axe
By Nigel Nelson
PARENTS who smack their children are likely to be spared the threat of jail under a Government rethink.

Mums and dads currently face up to five years in prison if they bruise or graze kids.

But outraged parents say the penalties – brought in two years ago under European human rights laws – are too tough.

They want the courts to distinguish between disciplining naughty kids and child abuse. Now the Government is to ask parents’ views over the summer after other surveys showed that two-thirds are in favour of disciplinary smacking. Tory children’s minister Tim Loughton said: “The present law is unworkable nonsense – it just criminalises parents.

“We need to clearly define the line between chastisement by parents as they see fit and violence towards children.” The current law allows “reasonable chastisement” but if a mark is made that could be treated as actual bodily harm.

Critics say that fails to recognise the difference between responsible parents and those who beat their kids black and blue.

The results of the Government survey will be announced by Schools Minister Andrew Adonis in the autumn when a law change will be considered.

Child protection organisations who want an outright ban on smacking will also be consulted…..

EDITORIAL – All feeling smack in checkout

02.07.2007
LOUIS PIERARD
With two suspicious deaths of infants at the weekend the controversy over whether cabinet minister David Cunliffe smacked his child in a supermarket seems obscenely petty.

But therein lies the point.

Mr Cunliffe – who denies he “smacked” his child – and his family are distressed by the attention received from “Families First”, which has lobbied against the anti-smacking legislation.

And who could blame him?

His parenting methods – and, no doubt, those of all who have supported the anti-smacking legislation – have become hostage to politics. Such scrutiny, though unkind, is not surprising.

The law’s opponents would relish the chance to test the new law on one of its high-profile advocates. However, all parents are in the same uncomfortable position as Mr Cunliffe, who was in fact congratulated by Families First, which said he “did what any half-decent parent would have done in the circumstances”.
While the Government’s accommodation reached with National for its support of the bill exempted “inconsequential” events from prosecution, that level has yet to be determined.

And despite repeated assurances that good parents won’t be hauled before the courts, how can anyone know?

Is a small, corrective smack in a supermarket a forgivable “technical breach” or might it be eligible for prosecution if drawing a complaint or witnessed more than once?

How much discretion might police be allowed if the precautionary principle gives authority to finger-pointers and mischief makers (who appear to be the beneficiaries of the new law)?

The triviality of the Cunliffe affair seen beside the baby deaths – the importance of which it has all but eclipsed – is instructive because it underlines the worthlessness of sending messages with a prescriptive, intrusive law.

Most New Zealanders believe that not only the new law fails to honour its promise to protect the young but it will also hit the wrong targets.

Meanwhile the real problem will remain unaddressed.

Sue Bradford’s bill won endorsement from many disgusted at the level of child abuse in New Zealand and who rightly believed something needed to be done. However, instead of focusing on baby bashers and killers (collectivist ideology absolves individual wrongdoers by making everyone else accountable) Parliament found blanket disapproval was far more convenient and put all parents on notice that they had better be on their best behaviour.

So disconnected have our politicians become from their constituents that they just cannot understand why they have deeply offended so many – even when one of their own is used to make the point.

MP in smacking controversy
2/07/2007 7:36:02

Opponents of the new anti-smacking law believe the actions of a Labour MP prove its stupidity.

There are claims Cabinet Minister David Cunliffe was spotted smacking his child at LynnMall shopping centre in Auckland, despite the fact the MP voted in favour of legislation repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack

Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.

Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.

“We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.”

“It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances.”

“However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated.“

“The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF’s for possible investigation and intervention.”

“That’s how farcical this law is,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children’s Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe’s actions totally unacceptable.”

But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
By RHONDA MARKBY – The Timaru Herald | Tuesday, 26 June 2007

The new law banning the smacking of children might be three days old, but Timaru police are yet to use it.

Senior Sergeant Mark Offen was not surprised that there had been no complaints, adding allegations of assault on children by either adults or children themselves, were not common.

In the less serious cases officers could use their discretion as to whether a charge was laid. Mr Offen said there still had to be sufficient evidence for police to lay a charge and take the matter to court.

Maxim Institute – real issues – No. 258
Friday, 22 June 2007, 10:50 am
Column: Maxim Institute
21 June 2007
http://www.maxim.org.nz

A LEAP IN THE DARK

This week the Police released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 detailing how they intend to decide whether parents will or will not be prosecuted when they use physical discipline. The changes to the law around disciplining children will come into effect on 22 June 2007, making it technically illegal to use mild physical force for the purposes of correction. However, if the offence is ‘inconsequential’ the police have discretion whether to prosecute.

The guidelines suggest that even though infrequent smacking may be considered inconsequential, prosecution may still occur after repetitive incidents. Similarly, even ‘inconsequential’ reports of force must be passed on to the Police family violence co-ordinator under the guidelines. The police have also been careful to point out that the true impact of this law will not be seen until case law develops. This means that until someone is prosecuted under the new section 59, the way the guidelines will be applied cannot be predicated. The changes to section 59 are, as many opponents warned, a leap in the dark.

The release of these guidelines coincides with the findings of a national poll on people’s attitudes towards the new law, conducted by Curia research, a market research firm. The results show that 78 percent of parents surveyed will still smack their children to correct their behaviour if they believe it is reasonable to do so. Only 16 percent said that they would not. This suggests that people are going to be willing to break the law and whether they will be punished for doing so will depend on how the police view their actions.

This raises an interesting question; will the vast majority of New Zealanders actually ignore this new legislation long-term or will the law eventually change New Zealanders’ perspective on parental discipline? Sweden is an interesting test case because physical punishment against children was banned in 1979, yet parents continued to physically discipline their children. While 34 percent of those born before 1979 indicated they had received physical punishment from their parents, this only dropped to 32 percent for those born during or after 1979. The results of the poll by Curia research tentatively suggest that a similar pattern may emerge in New Zealand, which is the inevitable result of a law that relies on police guidelines and court precedents.

Smacking doesn’t make me a bad mum – Rotorua parent

22.06.2007
By KRISTIN MACFARLANE

SINGLE mum Augusta Scott has her hands full with two young boys, Elijah, 10 and Chance, 8.

Most of the time they’re good kids.

But sometimes if they’re naughty, she’ll give them a light smack.

Ms Scott says that doesn’t make her a bad mother.

However, she’s worried that from today parents like her could come under unfair scrutiny.

Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill – the anti-smacking bill – comes into effect today after being passed into law last month.

Ms Scott said as a single mum it could be difficult controlling two young boys who sometimes fought.

In these circumstances, a light smack was necessary, she said.

“You can’t say naughty boy and send them to time out because it doesn’t work,” she said.

“If it’s controlled it can provide the effective reinforcement when you’re trying to teach a child something.

“It’s all the parents [who] discipline with control [who] are going to be under the spotlight.”

Ms Scott has a teenage daughter who was smacked when she misbehaved.

It had not had a negative affect on her, Ms Scott said.

Ms Scott said the bill also had the potential for children to make false complaints because it has been such a high-profile issue.

“Guaranteed, it will happen.”

John Wilson of the Rotorua police child abuse section agreed.

“There’s always been the potential for false complaints,” Mr Wilson said. However, he did think the bill was good in the sense that it changed the Crimes Act and removed the defence of “reasonable force” against assault on a child.

“It’s certainly a step in the right direction,” he said.

He didn’t think responsible parents needed to worry about getting into trouble.

“The whole thing has to be viewed with a good amount of common sense,” he said.

Anti-smacking guide for police
Jun 21, 2007

With the new anti-smacking law coming into effect on Friday, police have released guidelines on how staff should handle it.

The guide outlines situations where it is okay to smack. But parents opposed to the bill say the guidelines confirm it is their worst nightmare.

The police guidelines acknowledge children are unpredictable. A smack is okay to stop a child running onto a road, experimenting with electrical outlets or behaving in a criminal or offensive way that may harm themselves or others.

Police can also look the other way if the smack is deemed inconsequential or so light it doesn’t matter.

But if it comes to police attention, it will be recorded.

“It’s a record of police action and potentially if there is a sequence of incidents relating to a particular family or person then police clearly would be failing in their duty not to look at the matter appropriately,” says Pope.

In the guide, police state that where force is used against a child, they must consider the amount of force used before deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

If an assault is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, the event will be recorded and the file forwarded to a family violence co-ordinator.

But the guide states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”

Simon Barnett says he is a good father to his four children and smacking is all part of that.

“Then you say ‘look if you do that again daddy’s going to give you a smack on the count of three. One, two’ and if they do it again I will smack her wee hand,” Barnett says.

He believes police guidelines on the new anti-smacking law confirm his worst fears that parents like him will be criminalised.

“Even if it’s inconsequential smacking, your name goes on a police computer forever as a violent offender. That is unconscionable,” he says.

Police say that is just business as usual.

Police use a number of sources for registering complaints, offences or incidents they attend as part of our overall statistical gathering,” says Rob Pope, police deputy commissioner.

Like any new law, this one will have to be tested through the courts to see what the judiciary decides is inconsequential smacking or not. The police statement says that until cases go through the courts it is not clear how the law will be applied.

“Well I’m sorry, I don’t want to have to be the test case – some poor child getting dragged through the court system and some family suffering that fate,” says Barnett.

Police will review the guidelines in three months.

Law “confusing”

Bob McCoskrie from lobby group Family First says the guidelines show the law is confusing.

“If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says McCoskrie.

But bill author Sue Bradford says the guidelines really support the idea behind the bill. She says it is clear that using weapons, or hitting kids around their head is inappropriate and also gives good rules around what is.

CYF won’t change approach

And it will be business as usual for Child Youth and Family when the anti-smacking legislation comes into effect on Friday.

CYF says it will look at each notification involving physical discipline in the same way as any other allegation of assault.

Spokeswoman Lee Harris Royal says a smack on the back of the hand to signal displeasure will not reach an intervention stage.

In repeated events where police warnings have been unsuccessful involving the same family, only then will CYFS intervene.

But whether the use of physical force against a child constitutes an offence, will still be a police decision.

Smacking guidelines too restrictive – police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007

New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.

The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.

A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.

But association president Greg O’Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.

“The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given,” he told the New Zealand Herald.

There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.

There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.

Mr O’Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. “And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad.”

A group opposing the smacking bill – Family First – yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.

Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.

“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” Mr McCoskrie said.

The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.

National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.

A Hamilton father of five who plans to continue smacking his children in spite of a controversial law banning physical punishment says the police prosecution guidelines are too vague.

Neil Pascoe, whose children range in age from two to 23, said it was “totally ridiculous” that parents who regularly smacked their children despite warnings faced prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under the law, which comes into effect on Friday.

“How can they prove it?” he said. “They’re not there at the time – they didn’t see what went on . . . unless there is bruising – but if there is, or scarring, that then becomes abuse.”

Under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday, even parents found to have used “minor, trivial or inconsequential” force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence co-ordinators.

The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of a law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children.

It was passed after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute “inconsequential” smacking.

Though that is recognised in the guidelines, “inconsequential” is not defined, with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.

The advice goes on to say that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is “repetitive and frequent” and previous warnings have been ignored. Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYF.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents.

Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police “some context”.

National will fix smacking law if it’s broken

Wednesday, 20 June 2007, 10:05 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
John Key MP
National Party Leader
20 June 2007

National will fix smacking law if it’s broken

National Party Leader John Key says a National-led Government will change the smacking law if the spirit of the compromise thrashed out with Labour is broken.

“We’re watching the developments. National has maintained right the way through the process that we do not wish to see responsible parents criminalised. If that starts happening, a National Government would fix the law.

“The critical test of this legislation was always going to be the way it was administered.

“But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required. If, for whatever reason, that proves not to be the case, we’ll change it.

“The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for an ‘inconsequential’ smack. That’s what National signed up to, and that’s still the case.”

ENDS

The Dominion Post 20 June 2007

Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment. Even parents found to have used “minor, trivial or inconsequential” force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday. The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of the law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children. The law comes into force on Friday.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents. “Who’s going to be the lucky test case parents who have to go through the hell of a prosecution? If the police are saying ‘we’re not sure’, how in the heck are parents going to be certain that they’re parenting within the law?”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4100946a10.html

Police issue smacking law guide and question definitions
NZ Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10446785

READ The Police Practive Guide for New Section 59
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html

Family First’s Response…

Police Practice Guide for Smacking Law Confirms Worst Fears for Parents
Family First MEDIA RELEASE
19 JUNE 2007

The Police have confirmed that they will prosecute parents who lightly smack their children, even if the smacking is inconsequential.

In the Police Practice Guide released by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope today, it states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”

“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This flies in the face of assurances given by Helen Clark and John Key.”

The Police Practice guide also acknowledges the confusing nature of the new law in its introduction by stating that “until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law.”

“If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The Practice Guide also confirms that the Police will be keeping records of all complaints – even those of a minor, trivial or inconsequential nature.”

“It is interesting to note that the Police, in the absence of clear definitions in the law of who is a “child” and what constitutes “reasonable force” will be forced to make subjective decisions based on the age and maturity of the child and the circumstances that led to the use of force. In other words, and ironically, we’re back to the original section 59.”

“The politicians have delivered a ‘feel-good’ law change to the Police with no substance or certainty for parents, and some poor family is going to be the ‘test case’ of a law which, according to a recent poll, 78% of NZ’ers will ignore and 77% say it will have no effect on child abuse.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00214.htm

Smacking Law Rejected by Majority of NZ’ers – 78% Will Ignore the Law

Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.

These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.

29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.

“This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

82% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law.

When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know.

78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.

“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”

When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely.

“This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”

“The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.”

As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.

“Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.

The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

Read Full Report – http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Smacking%20Poll%20June%202007%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM

June 8, 2007 – 11:19AM

Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn’t want the practice outlawed.

Mr Howard said he did not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.

After an anti-smacking law was passed in New Zealand last month, the Australian Democrats called for the federal government to protect children from physical punishment.

A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.

Asked if he smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: “No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.

“We were not into, sort of, physical discipline,” he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

“That’s us. I’m not telling other parents how to run their lives.”

The prime minister said disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.

“I do not believe the law should be changed.

“There are laws at the moment which punish people who abuse children.

Swedish Academic Slams National MP for Cowardly Attack in Parliament Jacob Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus and Family Law at the University of Stockholm, and author (“Family Law under change”) has written to National MP Katherine Rich complaining about her cowardly and unsubstantiated attack on Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson who recently visited NZ.

In Rich’s speech in parliament recently supporting Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill against the weight of public opinion, Rich slammed Harrold-Claesson as a ‘fruit loop’ and ‘false expert’, all said behind the cowardly protection of parliamentary privilege.

However, Professor Sundberg rejects Rich’s attack stating that she has “fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm.”

Sundberg also slams Katherine Rich’s understanding and support of the Swedish experiment with smacking bans and says “Whether Sweden “benefited” from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation.”

Katherine Rich should do her homework before making baseless and defamatory attacks against individuals, especially in the cowardly way she did behind the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Letter from Sundberg to Kathryn Rich:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/letter-to-kathryn-rich-from-jacob-wf.html

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Chil
dren_Goodbye_7.pdf

Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency

The Prime Minister, in her response to calls to lower the alcohol limit for driving, has said what many parents and family groups argued should be the approach to the anti-smacking bill.

In response to a question this morning on Newstalk ZB as to why won’t the government consider lowering the alcohol limit on drink driving, the PM’s response was

“…I am highly conscious of not drinking before driving. I think most people are. And the question you have to ask is are you then going to bring in a rule that fundamentally changes it for highly law abiding people when the problem is with those who drink far too much.”

We agree.

Kiwi parents would agree.

“This was the exact argument used by Family First regarding the anti-smacking bill, which has effectively targeted law abiding parents, while ignoring the root causes of child abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “Why was the PM’s logic not used in the smacking debate?”

“As a result of shoddy and undemocratic lawmaking, ‘highly law abiding parents’ are now going to be criminalised, and threatened with investigation and intervention by CYF, because of a ‘fundamental’ law change that has no scientific support or international experience backing it up.”

“If we are serious about reducing our abysmal rate of child abuse, the target should be parents who physically and emotionally abuse their children or neglect their needs – a far cry from a smack on the bottom by a loving parent.”

“The Prime Minister should be consistent in her approach to law making,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Commissioner wants more integrated investment
Thursday, 17 May 2007, 6:12 pm
Press Release: Commissioner For Children

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00338.htm

Media Release
17 May 2007

Children’s Commissioner wants more integrated investment in children

Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro congratulates all those politicians who voted to pass the Crimes Amendment Bill (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill and sent a strong and united message that is consistent with a legislative and policy context that prioritises a whole child approach and working towards improved outcomes for children.

“We now need to support this direction towards a better future with monatory policies that support this,” says Dr Kiro.

“Today’s budget does contain some good initiatives for children although its focus is somewhat ad-hoc and not as coherent as the provisions for older people. There should be a clear strategy underpinning investment in children.”

“It is good to see investment in education and better health outcomes for children and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with government to deliver services that support children and families”

“New Zealand children should grow up in a safe and secure family environment, free from all forms of violence. Additional funding of $11.2 million towards programmes to reduce family violence is money well spent.”

“I would like to see more investment in preventing youth offending. Ensuring that children are safe and nurtured, have the resources to develop to their full potential, and have their views considered in matters that affect them, is a fundamental responsibility of governments and communities and families. It also makes good sense, as it will lead to a better future for all of us. Investments in childhood are most likely to bring good returns to society as a whole. The best results occur when we intervene early in the child’s life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater.”

I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential,” says Dr Kiro.

ENDS

Bob McCoskrie smacks his children, and Sue Bradford’s law change won’t make him stop.

The national director of Family First New Zealand, a vociferous opponent of the Green MP’s bill to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act, said the “confusing legislation” that passed last night would not changed the way he disciplined his three children – just the way he described it.

“I’ll continue to do it in a reasonable way and I’ll continue to do it as a back-up when other non-physical methods of discipline haven’t worked.”

After obtaining an opinion from Queen’s Counsel Grant Illingworth, Family First cautioned parents yesterday not to incriminate themselves to police.

Mr McCoskrie said that, under the amendment, parents could still use reasonable force for the purpose of prevention, but not for correction.

“What the QC is saying is that if you ever do get prosecuted for giving a light smack, simply say it was for the purpose of preventing bad behaviour, not correcting bad behaviour, which shows just how ridiculous the law is.”

Supporters of the bill relaxed yesterday as it passed with greater political support than initially expected.

Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she was hugely relieved.

She had supported outright repeal of section 59 and had some reservations about how the amendment would be interpreted, but was happy a compromise had been reached to “allay the fears that had been whipped up among parents around criminalisation”.

Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge said he was delighted, but the challenge now was to ensure parents were equipped to deal with behavioural problems without resorting to force.

In a rearguard action against the amendment, opponents yesterday took out full-page newspaper advertisements seeking signatures to force a referendum on child discipline at the next election.

The advertisements warned parents that they would be criminalised if they smacked their children, and said police had confirmed they would have to investigate any complaints made against parents who smacked or put their children in time out.

But Police Association president Greg O’Connor said he had been misquoted.

Police would continue to investigate complaints of assault – just as they always had – but putting a child in time-out would not land a parent in jail.

MEDIA RELEASE
16 MAY 2007

“I Was Preventing, Not Correcting, Bad Behaviour Officer!” – Advice to Parents

A leading QC has recommended to parents that they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour once the Anti-Smacking law is passed in Parliament.

“Because good parents who use reasonable force to effectively correct offensive or disruptive behaviour or defiance from a child will be exposed to criminal liability and investigation under the new anti-smacking law, it is essential that they receive good advice and protection,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.

Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what “correction” means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”

“This means that “correction” will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will “correction” be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends “correction” then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”

“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child’s aberrant behaviour. And if that isn’t silly, I don’t know what is.”

Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply –

1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?

Illingworth QC – The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.

2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?

The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.

“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking – despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 16 May 2007

CLASH OF IDEAS: See link for photo: Gordon Copeland debating the child discipline bill outside Parliament earlier this year. It is believed the United Future MP is quitting the party as he does not agree with its stance on the issue.
Related Links

UPDATED REPORT: The government has been dealt a blow on the eve of the budget, with United Future MP Gordon Copeland expected to announce today he is resigning from his party in protest at the so-called anti-smacking bill.

NZPA understands that Mr Copeland is leaving over Green MP Sue Bradford member’s bill to remove from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of “reasonable force” to correct a child.

Mr Copeland, a Christian, has always opposed the legislation and while he voted for an amendment stating police had discretion not to prosecute inconsequential complaints he felt the bill still made criminals of parents who smacked their children.

He would form the party with former colleague Larry Baldock who has been running a petition against the Bradford bill.

The party would be called Future New Zealand – the name of the Christian party which the United Party previously merged with.

When Parliament sat at 2pm National Party deputy leader Bill English questioned Prime Minister Helen Clark about Mr Copeland’s decision.

He said the Government could now only rely on 59 votes in the 121 MP Parliament.

“What assurances can she give as the leader of the current coalition of Labour, United Future and New Zealand First that the Government commands a majority in this House?” he asked.

The Government’s only formal coalition partner is the Progressive’s Jim Anderton. It has support agreements with New Zealand First and United Future and a cooperation agreement with the Greens under which that party abstains on confidence and supply issues.

The Government may find it harder passing some legislation but its confidence and supply arrangements are secure as they were when Taito Phillip Field became an independent.

Miss Clark said that the Government continued to enjoy the confidence of the House.

– With NZPA

MP quits over anti-smacking bill

May 16, 2007

United Future MP Gordon Copeland is set to quit United Future over the anti-smacking bill.

The decision leaves the government in a precarious situation. The recent defection of Taito Philip Field and now Copeland leaves the government in a true minority.

It is understood the MP is planning to start a new political party with a former one-term United Future MP Larry Baldock.

The catalyst for his departure is the anti-smacking bill, which will get its final reading on Wednesday. Both men vehemently oppose the amendment watering down the bill.

Copeland will stay on as an independent

Earlier this weka another United Future MP, Judy Turner, said she would oppose the anti-smacking bill when it had its final reading in parliament.

While she believes the compromise amendment reinforcing discretionary powers for police was a good move she is concerned it doesn’t also apply to Child Youth and Family.

from http://www.act.org.nz/hide_calls_on_helen_clark_and_john_key_to_allow_free_vote_on_anti_smacking_bill

15 May 2007

ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill.

“It’s all very well for John Key and Helen Clark to decide that they want to criminalise parents who smack their children – but it’s wrong that they dictate that their MPs must vote for the Bill.

“I don’t believe that the majority of Parliament is for this Bill. I believe, given the choice, the majority of Labour and National MPs would vote with ACT against this Bill. But there’s only one way to find out: Have a free vote in Parliament. After all, if Helen and John think the Bill is so good, then they should have no problem allowing their MPs a free vote.

“Make no mistake this Bill criminalises parents who smack their children. The Bill states its purpose is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 and declares:

“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”

“The amendment that John Key and Helen Clark have agreed to does nothing to alter the fact that parents who smack their children will be breaking the law. All it does is confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they will prosecute parents who smack their kids.

“Smacking parents may not be prosecuted but they will still be breaking the law and Sue Bradford’s Bill makes good, loving parents criminals.

“It’s an atrocious Bill. That’s why we need a free vote” said Rodney Hide.

ENDS

To access a copy of Rodney Hide’s letter to Helen Clark and John Key go to http://www.act.org.nz/files/m/downloads/Letter%20To%20Clark%20And%20Key.pdf.

RODNEY HIDE MP
Leader ACT New Zealand, MP for Epsom
Parliament Buildings Wellington Telephone 04 470 6630 Fax 04 473 3532
Electorate Office: Unit A, 11-13 Clovernook Road, Newmarket, PO Box 9209 Newmarket AUCKLAND
Telephone 09 522 7464 Fax 09 523 0472
http://www.RodneyHide.com
http://www.act.org.nz

May 1407 Clark and Key
14 May 2007

Right Honourable Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings

John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament Buildings

Dear Helen and John

On Wednesday 16 May we have the final vote on Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted
Section 59) Amendment Bill.

I write to ask you to allow your respective MPs a free vote in the same way all other parties have allowed their MPs to vote as their conscience determines.

The Bill is controversial with public polls reporting 83 percent of New Zealanders opposing it.

In Epsom 68 percent of voters are opposed; only 21 percent in favour.

John, when you opposed the Bill, you asked the Prime Minister the following question:
“If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so
completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?”

It’s a good question. Of course, at the time the vote was tight. In fact, you suggested that Sue Bradford’s Bill would not pass if Labour allowed their MPs a free vote. Presumably the vote is less tight as you and some of your caucus are now supporting it. Surely we are now in a better position to have a free vote and see what Parliament actually thinks.

John, you once thought it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to allow her caucus a free vote, why isn’t it a good idea for you now to do the same? It would be good for our democracy and for political accountability if you would do so.

Prime Minister, you told Parliament last Wednesday: “…But I do think that in the case of the Bill on Section 59, the overwhelming majority of our Parliament has come together, not only to send a very strong message about not wanting the violence that causes death and injury in our homes but also to send a strong message of support to good, decent parents, who should not be marched off to court for matters that are so inconsequential it would not be in the public interest to have them there…”

If it is truly the “overwhelming majority” of our Parliament that has come together then you should have no difficulty accepting a free vote. The problem is if you don’t, it looks as if you and John Key are dictating how the majority of Parliament should vote. Not all of Parliament accepts this Bill just as much of the country does not. The only way to resolve it is to allow a free vote.

ACT is the only party which now opposes the Bill. We oppose it because it makes any mum or dad lightly smacking their toddler a criminal. That’s ridiculous. The Bill’s purpose makes this clear. It is to:

“Make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 that drives the point home:

“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”

Once the Bill passes it will be against the law to smack a child and a parent lightly smacking their toddler will be committing a criminal offence as defined in the Crimes Act.

New subsection (4) which you have both agreed to doesn’t change this fact. That is why Sue Bradford has not withdrawn her bill as she said she would if it was watered down in any way.

All your joint amendment does is to confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute or not, discretion they have always had and have always exercised.

The fact remains that a parent smacking their child will be committing a crime, whether or not they are prosecuted. Good parents will be criminalised should this bill pass into law. It’s simply not right to criminalise parents in this way.

I once again ask you both to allow you respective caucus’ a free vote to test truly the will of Parliament.

Yours sincerely
Rodney Hide MP for Epsom
Leader, ACT New Zealand

Monday, 14 May 2007, 10:16 am
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Monday, 14 May 2007
Turner to oppose Bradford Bill

United Future MP Judy Turner today announced she will be voting against the third and final reading of Green MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking Bill when it next comes up for debate in Parliament.

“I do believe that the amendment passed last week to clarify the police discretion to not prosecute when it is not in the public interest to do so, was a definite improvement,” says Mrs Turner.

“However, this provision does not apply to Child Youth and Family Services who, like the police, have statutory powers and can remove your children, limit your access, and eventually in the interests of permanency, place them with a new family.

“Some would say that it is pure hysteria to suggest that parents will lose their children into care if they lightly smack their children.

“Well I hope they are right. CYFS certainly don’t have to meet the same burden of proof as the police do to make an arrest, so discretion is even harder to determine.

“Currently this agency has no robust complaints service and because this is lacking there is little feedback across the department about the need to change social work procedures.

“They do acknowledge that most complaints are about social work provision, but there is no break-down of this to identify if there are any common themes in these complaints.

“Parents I have dealt with fear making a complaint in case they further jeopardise their case. They feel powerless and understandably emotional, often lacking the skills needed to make calm representation to staff at the local branch office.

“To date, not enough has changed in this department to reassure me that good parents are safe, and for this reason… I am not supporting the third reading of this Bill.

ENDS

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00223.htm

MP’s to Vote on “Most Extreme Anti-Smacking Law in World” – Expert

Politicians will vote this week on the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.

In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says “…the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden’s ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties …. Sweden’s ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand’s bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents.”

Dr Larzelere also highlights concerns of immigrants to NZ with the law and says “The New Zealand bill’s proponents claim that missionaries were responsible for introducing smacking and bashing to the Maori and other South Pacific peoples. The irony is that they are doing the same thing they accuse missionaries of – imposing a European philosophy of child correction on native ethnic groups – this time enforced with criminal penalties.”

He warns that the law to be voted on this Wednesday by Parliament “…runs counter to scientific evidence, previous experiences with similar bans, and the wisdom of previous generations as far back as we can remember. It illustrates the world’s increasing inability to work out well-reasoned balanced positions rather than forcing people to choose between polarized extremes.”

Dr Larzelere compares our politicians’ efforts to ban smacking with US President George W Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and says Bush “…had an overly optimistic view about invading Iraq because they heard only one optimistic side of the scenarios. Now our country is in a quagmire with no good way out. For the sake of New Zealand’s children and future, I hope they have a better exit strategy than George Bush.”

Dr Larzelere’s full warning can be read at http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Dr_Larzelere

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Save the Children Report – Further Proof that Smacking Isn’t the Issue

The latest report from Save the Children “State of the World’s Mothers 2007 – Saving the Lives of Children Under 5” is further evidence that the proposed ban on smacking is a ‘feel-good’ policy which has been adopted by 17 countries now without any identifiable or tangible benefit.

For the child death rate in the developed world, NZ currently ranks 21st. Of the top 20 safest countries, less than half have banned smacking. And the worst country for child deaths, Romania, banned smacking 3 years ago.

“Save the Children in New Zealand have trumpeted this report as further evidence that section 59 should be repealed,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “yet this report is simply further proof that groups like Save the Children, Barnardos and EPOCH are barking up the wrong tree in relation to child abuse.”

“The report quite correctly identifies the health and well-being of the mother, the availability of skilled health personnel during births, education and poverty as key contributors to children being at risk.”

The report reiterates the issues that Family First is highlighting. It says “Factors such as single parenthood, low levels of maternal education, teenage motherhood, substandard housing, large family size and parental drug or alcohol abuse increase the risks that a child will not survive to age 5.”

Mr McCoskrie says it is time that groups like Save the Children, CYF and UNICEF in NZ started reading their own reports and started advocating for dealing with the actual causes of child abuse, rather than attacking good families.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

ANTI-SMACKING BILL

Can Parents Have Confidence in the Proposed Anti-Smacking Law?

But Clark said the proposed change was a “breakthrough” in that it provided assurance to good parents who were concerned they could be prosecuted for lightly smacking their children under the bill. She said the bill as it stood would have never done that, but inserting police guidelines into the legislation made that clear. – Helen Clark (NZPA 2 May 2007)

” National Party Leader John Key is pleased Labour will adopt a version of his amendment to the anti-smacking bill which he thinks will give parents confidence they will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children .” – John Key (Media Release 2 May 2007)

BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS!

The amendment simply says they may not be PROSECUTED for smacking their children – if the police thinks the force is “inconsequential” (whatever that means) and “not in the public interest” (but there is HUGE public interest by anti-smacking groups to ban all force.)

In response to an email from Family First to the Police Association, where we put a couple of scenarios of how a harrassed mother may deal with a child who is being defiant and a member of the public or even the child complains to the police, they said

“The important thing to remember is that in both cases, a complaint has been made and police have an obligation to investigate. A file will be created and it will be assigned to an officer to investigate. They will interview witnesses, etc, as we always do, to establish the facts to the extent they can. It is then that a decision will be made.

Had Section 59 been repealed, under police policy, if there was evidence of an offence, the offender would have to be arrested. Now there will be a test applied as to whether the force was inconsequential or not which essentially means police can and will exercise some discretion.

As to whether CYFS will be notified, the answer as I understand it to be, bearing in mind I speak on behalf of the Association not Police, is that there is likely to be a notification if it is established some force has been used. This is the practice where a complaint involving a child is made. ”

ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT LIGHT SMACKS WILL STILL BE A CRIME

AND THAT ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST A PARENT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REFERRED TO CYF??
– despite the supposed compromise reached by Clark, Key and Bradford???

We believe that John Key and Helen Clark should make good their promise that parents will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children. This should be explicitly spelt out in the legislation – not left to the Police. This would avoid good parents coming under the weight and stress of an investigation by the police and CYF if a malicious or unecessary complaint is made against them.

GOOD PARENTS DESERVE THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW

There are 3 things we’d like you to consider doing – if you agree with our concerns:

1. Email all NATIONAL MP’s and ask that John Key’s promise to parents is stated explicitly in the law – that parents will not be criminalised for light smacks. Also ask for a Conscience Vote on the issue

shane.ardern@parliament.govt.nz; chris.auchinvole@parliament.govt.nz ; david.bennett@parliament.govt.nz ; paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz ; jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz ; mark.blumsky@parliament.govt.nz ; chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz ; natalie.roberts@parliament.govt.nz ; david.carter@parliament.govt.nz ; john.carter@parliament.govt.nz ;
bob.clarkson@parliament.govt.nz ; jonathan.coleman@parliament.govt.nz ; judith.collins@parliament.govt.nz ; brian.connell@national.org.nz ; jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz ;
lorraine.jones@parliament.govt.nz ; christopher.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz ; craig.foss@parliament.govt.nz ; jo.goodhew@parliament.govt.nz ; sandra.goudie@national.org.nz ;
tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz ; sue.reid@parliament.govt.nz ; john.hayes@parliament.govt.nz ; phil.heatley@parliament.govt.nz ; tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz ; alwyn.black@parliament.govt.nz ;
emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz ; colin.king@parliament.govt.nz ; wayne.mapp@parliament.govt.nz ; murray.mccully@parliament.govt.nz ; allan.peachey@parliament.govt.nz ;
simon.power@parliament.govt.nz ; katherine.rich@national.org.nz ; eric.roy@parliament.govt.nz ; tony.ryall@parliament.govt.nz ; katrina.shanks@national.org.nz ;
clem.simich@parliament.govt.nz ; lockwood.smith@parliament.govt.nz ; nick.smith@parliament.govt.nz ; meg.dowrick@parliament.govt.nz ; lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz ;
anne.tolley@parliament.govt.nz ; chris.tremain@national.org.nz ; nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz ; kate.wilkinson@parliament.govt.nz ; maurice.williamson@parliament.govt.nz ;
pansy.wong@parliament.govt.nz ; richard.worth@parliament.govt.nz ;
(simply copy these signatures and paste onto email)

2. Email all LABOUR MP’s and remind them that if the new amendment is as good as they say, allow a Conscience Vote for their MP’s

rbarker@ministers.govt.nz ; tim.barnett@parliament.govt.nz ; dbenson-pope@ministers.govt.nz ; mburton@ministers.govt.nz ; ccarter@ministers.govt.nz ; steve.chadwick@parliament.govt.nz ;
ritchie.wards@parliament.govt.nz ; ritchie.wards@parliament.govt.nz ; pm@ministers.govt.nz ; clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz ; mcullen@ministers.govt.nz ; dcunliffe@ministers.govt.nz ;
ldalziel@ministers.govt.nz ; hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz ; rdyson@ministers.govt.nz ; russell.fairbrother@parliament.govt.nz ; darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz ;
jan.gribben@parliament.govt.nz ; pgoff@ministers.govt.nz ; mark.gosche@parliament.govt.nz ; ann.hartley@parliament.govt.nz ; george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz ;
dave.hereora@parliament.govt.nz ; marian.hobbs@parliament.govt.nz ; phodgson@ministers.govt.nz ; phoromia@ministers.govt.nz ; darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz ;
shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz ; aking@ministers.govt.nz ; wlaban@ministers.govt.nz ; moana.mackey@labour.org.nz ; smaharey@ministers.govt.nz ; nmahuta@ministers.govt.nz ;
tmallard@ministers.govt.nz ; sue.moroney@parliament.govt.nz ; doconnor@ministers.govt.nz ; mahara.okeroa@parliament.govt.nz ; dparker@ministers.govt.nz ;
jill.pettis@parliament.govt.nz ; lynne.pillay@parliament.govt.nz ; mririnui@ministers.govt.nz ; ross.robertson@parliament.govt.nz ; dsamuels@ministers.govt.nz ; lesley.soper@parliament.govt.nz ;
maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz ; paul.swain@parliament.govt.nz ; jtizard@ministers.govt.nz ; margaret.wilson@parliament.govt.nz ; dianne.yates@parliament.govt.nz ;
(simply copy these signatures and paste onto email)

3. Continue to gain signatures for the Referendum.

There are already over 160,000 signatures on this petition demanding a Referendum on this exact issue “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a Criminal Offence in NZ”

You can download forms here http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/sign_the_petitions.html

Finally….

Please feel free to email us with your feedback and opinion on this issue. Email bob@familyfirst.org.nz

Have a good week

Kind regards

Bob McCoskrie
NATIONAL DIRECTOR

www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |

The Tail is Wagging the Dog

The ramming through Parliament of the deeply unpopular anti-smacking bill is the clearest sign yet that under MMP the ‘tail is wagging the dog’. As Iain Gillies wrote in an editorial in the Gisborne Herald last month: “Widespread antipathy to Sue Bradford’s bill on parental smacking could unwittingly provoke renewed calls for a review of the MMP voting system. The motion does not figure much – yet – in either public discussion or the parliamentary debate, but may well get traction when voters consider to whom their MPs are beholden; their party hierarchy or the electorate (To read the article click here http://www.nzcpd.com/research.htm).

MMP was sold to New Zealanders as a system that would improve representative democracy in this country so that the views of the voters would hold more weight. Surely, no-one could have envisioned the situation we now find ourselves in whereby, in spite of overwhelming public opposition, a list-only minority party is being allowed to foist onto New Zealanders the sort of anti-family legislation that would make Karl Marx proud.

The anti-smacking bill is the brainchild of Green Party MP Sue Bradford. In a 2005 article entitled Vote Labour Now to Smash Capitalism Later, the Communist Workers’ Group states: “A Labour government may need the backing of the Greens. Commentator Chris Trotter said that the New Zealand Greens are probably the most left-wing Green party in the world that has made it into political office. On the face of it there seems to be some truth in this with people like ex-Socialist Action League member Keith Locke and ex-Workers Communist League member Sue Bradford”. (See Aotearoa Independent Media Centre http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/37062/index.php)

So unbelievably, because of the support of the Prime Minister, a former Workers Communist League member is now set to impose her ideology onto New Zealand. British journalist Lynette Burrows in an article How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights’ explains what’s behind the ideology:

“The question was always, why are the children’s rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.

“It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers. They are by training and tradition, marxist, feminist and anti-religious. They don’t much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light… The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be – but you wouldn’t know it from official literature on the subject.

“Thus, anybody who wanted to further a marxist, feminist agenda could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. It is not about the elevation of children’s rights at all. It is all about the crushing of adult ones”. (To read the article click here http://www.nzcpd.com/research.htm)

Complicit in this attack on parents is Helen Clark who, badly needing Green Party support after the abdication of Philip Field, has done everything in her power to get this anti-smacking law passed: she has prevented her MPs from exercising a conscience vote, she attempted to get the bill passed under urgency, she tried to adopt it as a government bill, and now, in what must be one of the greatest political coups in New Zealand’s history, she has duped the National Party, United and New Zealand First into supporting a Claytons amendment.

The new amendment provided by the Law Commission – under instruction from the Prime Minister – and tabled in Parliament by the Leader of the United Party, changes nothing. As the law now stands if a complaint is laid about a parent smacking a child, the police are required to investigate and to notify the Department of Child Youth and Family. As a result of such an investigation the Police already have the discretion over whether or not to prosecute: if the matter is minor and of no public interest then there will be no prosecution. The much-heralded new clause – which astonishingly gained the support of even those MPs who were vehemently opposed to Bradford’s bill – simply re-states the law as it stands. (To read the original Police advice to the Select Committee click here http://www.nzcpr.com/policeadvice.pdf).

What this whole exercise has shown, is that under MMP calculated cunning is the name of the game. As long as the ruling party can cobble together sufficient support in the House – using whatever trickery it can dream up – any sort of radical new law can now be imposed in New Zealand without public mandate. Nothing is sacred, not even our right to run our own families as we see fit.

Democracy is meant to be government for the people, by the people and of the people. It is meant to respect the rights and freedoms of each and every citizen. What we have under MMP is government by political unions – the political parties – which collude to seek electoral advantage so they can push their ideology into law in order to satisfy the special interest groups that provide their support. All that matters is whether they have the numbers: the question of whether a proposed public policy change will serve the common interest and the public good appears to have been subsumed by the desire to be seen to be winning a victory in Parliament.

Most of the time they get away with it, but this time, with public opinion polls showing that the views of over 80% of New Zealanders are being ignored by our MMP parliamentarians – who look set to pass the anti-smacking bill into law – then surely it is time to question the electoral system itself.

Peter Shirtcliffe has always held serious doubts about the suitability of MMP for New Zealand. He is the NZ Centre for Political Research guest commentator this week. In an article entitled The Nonsense of the List MP he explains:

“One of the most heavily-promoted arguments in favour of MMP was that its introduction would transform for the better the way in which Parliament worked. We were promised… greater sensitivity to the wishes of the Electorate”.

Peter goes on to say: “The signs of politically-driven control agendas are starting to show and objective common-sense solutions will not readily emerge from arrogant, unelected MPs who are at the same time seeking ways to use more taxpayers’ (your) money to fund their own organisations”.

Peter is not alone in believing that a further referendum on MMP is now warranted – although he does note that it is extremely unlikely that such an initiative would be generated by this Parliament. I suspect that a good many of the 1,032,919 voters who supported MMP in the 1993 referendum did so believing that if it didn’t work out, they were going to be given another chance to change it in a later referendum.

With the vexed question of how to best to safeguard ourselves from hasty, unwise or ill-considered legislation uppermost in our mind, maybe the time is now right for that long-awaited binding referendum on whether MMP has delivered to New Zealand a system of government that ensures that not only do our elected representatives reflect the will of the people, but they are also committed to protecting their rights and their liberties.

The poll this week asks whether you would support New Zealand holding a binding referendum on MMP.
To vote click here http://www.nzcpr.com/

Last week’s poll asked: Do you you support government funded legal aid for environmental activists driving a political agenda? The result: 3% voted Yes, 97% voted No! Hundreds of the comments submitted on this issue can be seen here http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=179.

HOUSEKEEPING:
Please feel free to send this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested and encourage them to visit the website and register for the newsletter.

Don’t forget that we are always keen to consider publication of opinion pieces for the website Soapbox Series http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm– why not visit the page and send in your submission.

To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here muriel@nzcpd.com

NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based forum at http://www.nzcpd.com/ for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or by post at PO Box 984 Whangarei.

Politicians Party over Parental Sellout

No matter how you slice it, Bradford’s original intention in repealing Section 59 was to make criminals out of parents who dared to use any force, regardless of how light or reasonable, to correct their own children, a core responsibility of parenthood.

This amendment does not effect this intention one iota: which is why Bradford is so happy and did not pull the bill.

If this bill goes through, parents wanting to correct a child’s bad behaviour or speech or attitude or values or morals will be committing a criminal act if any force of any kind is used. This is way beyond smacking, which significantly isn’t mentioned anywhere in the bill. To correct a child is at the very least to force the parent’s will on the child, however that is done: physical force; appeals to cultural, social, religious or traditional standards; warnings of loss of
privileges, intimidation, etc.

And to show how encompassing this criminalisation is, neither Bradford nor anyone else has yet bothered to define what “correction” means, even though it is about to become the latest crime to be added to the Crimes Act. Neither is the term “force” defined nor limited to only physical force.

Every parent in the country is under threat.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity

http://kearney.blogspot.com/2007/05/meet-new-bill-same-as-old-bill.html

Yesterday’s ‘consensus’ changes http://stuff.co.nz/4045623a6160.html don’t change the legal effect of the anti-smacking bill at all.

It is always possible for the police to refuse to prosecute on the grounds that there is no public interest. If they can do it when the Prime Minister commits fraud they can certainly do it when a parent lightly smacks their child. However, the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute and the bill does not change that. When opposition MP Shane Ardern drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament, police did choose to prosecute. Now for light smacking, then will be able to prosecute as and when they choose, based on race, gender, previous convictions, political party membership or any other grounds they see fit.

There are a couple of misunderstandings now out there.

The normally sensible Audrey Young http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10437478 in the Herald declares that “The compromise explicitly tells the police not to prosecute inconsequential ‘offences’”. A simple reading of the text of the amendment is enough to see that this is not so. It explicitly says the police have discretion.

Dave at Big News http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-support-smacking-amendment-as-most.html says: “It is the intent of Parliament that is most important – even more important than the wording of legislation itself.” This is a common misconception, even among law students. The intent of Parliament evidenced by Hansard etc. is looked at when an Act is ambiguous (it shouldn’t be but that is a story for another day). This Act is not ambiguous. It’s the police’s choice.

I suppose a defendant might seek judicial review of the decision to prosecute, but judicial review is weighted in favour of the government decision maker, even in criminal cases. To show that no reasonable decision maker would have found there was any public interest at all in prosecuting sounds like a very uphill battle. If the defendant suspects police bias against them for some reason it would be very hard to prove that as well.

I was wondering how Helen Clark could come out of this looking good but her amazing political cunning has manifested itself yet again. Two days ago her party was backing a bill opposed by 80% of New Zealanders. Since then, the bill has not materially changed, the opposition are now supporting it, and a smokescreen has been created that will likely persuade many of those 80% that the bill is not too bad, especially given the compliant nature of the media coverage.

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2007/05/well-never-know.html

Harking back to yesterday’s suggestion by Larry Baldock that Clark was facing a caucus revolt, here’s where Harry Duynhoven was at;

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven last night revealed how close he came to crossing the floor over the Bradford bill.

Mr Duynhoven is one of Labour’s more conservative MPs, and was frequently challenged by National MPs to vote with opponents of the bill.

“On this issue I have been more torn than any other issue we have debated in this House,” he said.

“I have seriously considered whether I fitted still, whether my views and the basis of my value system were appropriate for the party I am in.”

Personally I don’t think he was on his own. But now we will never know.

With the amendment we will have the police defining what is acceptable. If they don’t want to make that call they can refer the case to CYF. What is CYF’s directive? As always they will be using their discretion based on evidence and testimony. So what happens before a case reaches court is pretty much the same.

Thereafter, the accused will have no defence of reasonable force and the court will have to decide what is and isn’t ‘inconsequential’. Things have just become a lot murkier. What was bad legislation has been turned into worse legislation and so it will be passed.

There will be more reports because the population, thanks to this extraordinary debate, is charged up about the moral rights and wrongs of smacking.

And given the result, it’s a debate that has been a waste of time. Except for the CIR petition that asks govt to do something meaningful about child abuse.

Unrest in National ranks over smacking bill
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=116712

3/05/2007 14:16:14

There is disquiet among a large number of National MPs over their leader’s decision to strike a deal with Helen Clark over the anti-smacking bill.

Newstalk ZB’s political staff say news of John Key’s late night meeting with the Prime Minister came as a complete surprise to National’s caucus.

National and Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson says the anti-smacking bill is home invasion. He says the compromise reached with the Labour Party was a caucus decision.

Mr Clarkson says National has let Labour off the hook with the deal. He says he would have left Labour to be hung out to dry, as the public reacted to the controversial bill.

One senior National MP says most party representatives are going to hold their judgement on the move, after gauging media and public reaction.

Another says while National has been instrumental in brokering near political consensus on the issue, many MPs are unhappy they will end up supporting a bill which they are opposed to, as is the majority of the public.

Both agree that the decision could be a stroke of genius, or a serious setback and that only time will tell.

Smoke and mirrors

Pundits hail a political consensus. National and Labour have done a back-room deal on an amendment to the “anti-smacking Bill,” and parents apparently no longer have anything to fear. But when the smoke and mirrors are rolled away, the effect of the Bill has not changed. The Bill would still mean that good parents who use mild correction are committing a criminal offence, regardless of whether they are prosecuted.

The amended Bill says that the Police will not have to prosecute “where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.” But immediately preceding this is the statement, “Nothing … justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” In other words, parents who use mild physical force for correction, such as a light smack, will be acting outside the law and subject to Police scrutiny, investigation and possible prosecution.

The problems with this proposal are legion. To begin with, we should only call something criminal if it is worthy of prosecution and conviction. This proposal attempts to fudge the issue and falls foul of this standard. It also gives the Police wide discretion and raises the spectre of discriminatory enforcement. The requirement that prosecution be in the public interest may sound reassuring, but different prosecutors will take different views of what it means, and the Law Commission has said that Police have been known to continue with some cases which are not in the public interest. Significantly, the limitation would only apply to Police, not to other government agencies, and not to private citizens, who are able to prosecute for breaches of the criminal law.

The amended Bill is highly unsatisfactory, but seems likely to be passed in just a couple of weeks with almost no scrutiny or debate.

Read Maxim Institute’s Issue Snapshot Section 59: The consensus amendment
http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=994

http://johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/archives/100-VIDEO-John-Key-video-journal-5-on-the-s59-amendment.html#c434

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00075.htm

Family First Calls for Clark and Key to Allow Conscience Vote on Bill

Family First is calling on the leaders of the National and Labour party to allow a conscience vote for their MP’s on the final reading of the ‘anti-smacking’ bill in two week’s time.

“If this revised bill is as good as both John Key and Helen Clark are claiming, then they should have no problem allowing their MP’s to vote with their conscience as was previously promised,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

On March 22 of this year when Labour were attempting to place the bill under urgency, John Key said “The Labour-led Government knows the (anti-smacking bill) is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill.” (http://johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/archives/60-Labour-shows-contempt-for-New-Zealanders.html)

Mr McCoskrie believes that MP’s within both the Labour and National Caucus are still deeply unhappy with this law change, and know that parents in their local electorates are not happy with them having to support the bill.

“A good law will have the support of MP’s, who in turn know that they have the backing of the people. That’s democracy. This bill still doesn’t have a public mandate.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Confusing times
Thursday, May 03, 2007

I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill.

Good on John Key I thought. He’s taken the high ground and made a difference. That’s what I thought. Until I saw the amendment.

It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it’s Helen Clark!! This amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms “inconsequential” and “public interest”.

Then John Key wips the National Party caucus to vote for it. So now Labour and National are voting for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill. The criticisms National made of the Bill still stand except now they are all voting for it.

But get this: I move Chester Borrows’ amendment last night because he wouldn’t. That defines clearly what is allowed and what is not. National voted against it, including Chester.

It must be the jet lag or something. I can’t figure it out!

UPDATE: Here are my speeches from last night. http://www.act.org.nz/

Here is an interesting exchange with Chester:
I ask Mr Borrows whether it is true that the police have a decision not to prosecute.

Chester Borrows: Yes.

RODNEY HIDE: So this does nothing to Sue Bradfordâ€(tm)s bill?

Chester Borrows: No

Party leader Bernard Darnton today confirmed that Libertarianz opposes John Key’s sell-out on the anti-smacking bill.

“John Key is utterly worthless. I have no idea why he doesn’t just join the Labour Party,” Darnton said in disgust.

“Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill effectively nationalises New Zealand’s children by removing parental discretion in how to raise them. It is ‘nanny state’ in its most literal form. Helen Clark’s amendment, which John Key has lapdoggedly pursued, does nothing to change that.”

Looking at EXPORTING?
“All this amendment does is give Police discretion in deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest. As ministers of the current government already know, the Police already have that power.”

“The amended bill will not necessarily prevent the Police from prosecuting trivial cases. It will not prevent CYF from making its victims’ lives a misery. It will not prevent private prosecutions – against which there will now be no defence – from malicious ex-spouses. It will not make the tiniest bit of difference to those who already seriously assault their children.”

SCOOP FULL COVERAGE: Section59 May 2 2007

* Front of the Box –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0705/S00029.htm> Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson: Smacking Bill

* Save The Children –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00067.htm> Save The Children Applauds Parliamentary Support For Section 59

* Libertarianz Party –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00066.htm> Key Sells Out On Smacking

* Caritas Aotearoa –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00065.htm> Caritas Support For Section 59 Amendment

* Families Commission –
< http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00063.htm> Public education must follow amendment

* Direct Democracy Party Of NZ –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00062.htm > DDP Disappointed In National Support For Smacking Bill

Scoop Audio: Clark and Key Unite On Section 59

Scoop Image by Kevin List
<http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0705/ed3e8526741d5b9efb3f.jpeg>
Wednesday morning the media and assorted onlookers were treated to the rare sight of a joint press conference involving both the Prime Minister Helen Clark and the Leader of the Opposition John Key. The reason behind this unlikely podium sharing was that Mr Key was announcing he would now be supporting Green MP Sue Bradford’s Bill… More
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00063.htm> >>

* National – < http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0705/S00043.htm> Labour adopts version of Key s59 amendment

* Greens – < http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0705/S00050.htm> Kids win out over petty politics

* Maori Party –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0705/S00051.htm > ‘Hitting is an Adult Issue’

* Maori Party –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0705/S00057.htm> ‘Important Day for Maori’ says Turia

* Every Child Counts –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00040.htm> Every Child Counts welcomes political consensus

* LawFuel – <http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00041.htm> Police Resources Allocated To Anti-Smacking Law

* Young Labour –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00043.htm> Clark leads the way on sensible resolution to section 59 debate

* Family First Lobby. –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00045.htm> Backdown on Bradford Bill Still Not Total Victory

* Relationship Services –
< http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00046.htm> Relationship Services Supports Amendment

* Public Health Association –
< http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0705/S00026.htm> Good news on s59 but more action required

* Police Association –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00048.htm > Frontline Police Welcome the Clarity on Discretion

* New Zealand Police –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00051.htm> Police Welcome Proposed Amendment to Bradford Bill

* KiwiFM Audio –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00060.htm> Wammo n List – S59 Amendment Grand Coalition

<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00009.htm>

* Anglican Bishops –
< http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00015.htm> Anglican bishops support repeal of Section 59

* Anglican Church –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00006.htm > Ecumenical Church service to support repeal of s59

* Maori Anglican Church –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00014.htm> Anglican Maori support repeal of Section 59

* Maori Anglican Church –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00035.htm> Smacking lobby have got the wrong end of the stick

* St Andrew’s on The Terrace –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00050.htm> Lament for the Children of Aotearoa

* Catholic Communications –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00022.htm> No Catholic bishops at Ecumenical Service

* www.familyvalues.net.nz –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00364.htm> ‘Wednesday’s mass rally to up anti against bill

* Society For Promotion Of Community Standards –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00010.htm> Call to Abandon Bradford’s Flawed Bill

* Society for the Promotion of Community Standards –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00020.htm> Cracks Widen in ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill Support

* National Network of Stopping Violence Services –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00366.htm > NZ Experts Reject American Advice

* Family First Lobby. –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00030.htm> US Expert Opposes Anti-Smacking Bill

* Family First Lobby. –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00026.htm> Bradford continues to mislead the country

* Lindsay Mitchell –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00025.htm> Sweden’s Ban on Smacking a Failure

* Scoop Full Coverage –
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00511.htm> Section 59 Bill

ENDS

People Power or Political Brinkmanship?
After feeling the blow torch of public opinion a compromise appears to have been found over Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill to repeal Section 59 – known as the anti-smacking bill. The reaction around the country has been fierce. Even those who supported the intent were angry at the possibility parents would become criminals even for lightly smacking their children. Whether or not that was likely was clearly becoming a political problem. Our show last night drew around 600 emails and thousands of responses to our online questionnaire. But today National leader John Key joined forces with Prime Minister Helen Clark to announce an amendment to the bill, that should see it passed with the support of all parties.

The amendment reads: “To avoid doubt it is affirmed that 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, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

Today Corinne Ambler hit the streets of Wellington to talk to the masses. Then in the studio Mark Sainsbury talked to PM Helen Clark, National leader John Key, Green MP Sue Bradford and father of four Simon Barnett.

Smacking Feedback
Last night we received more than 600 emails about the smacking issue, more than 90 percent of which were against Sue Bradford’s bill. You can read some of those by clicking http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488124/1093173 and more than 5700 also participated in our survey conducted by Buzz that you can contribute to HERE http://www.buzzchannel.co.nz/v2.1/surveys/closeup/start.asp?s=2980&c=89

By IAN STEWARD – The Press | Thursday, 3 May 2007

Police and child welfare agencies welcomed the clause inserted into the child-discipline bill yesterday, while some parents still decried being “criminalised”.

The clause gives police the discretion to not prosecute parents for offences “so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding”.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said the clause represented “MMP at its finest”.

“It ensures an important element of policing is retained – the ability to use discretion. What front-line police had feared was that they would have no choice but to arrest people, but now it empowers the people who should have the power, and that is senior sergeants.”

O’Connor said the law was the only one he could think of that enshrined discretion which until now had been a tacit understanding.

Christchurch radio personality and father of four Simon Barnett said the law was now more confusing than ever.

“Police will have to be judge and jury and make a decision on the spot. I feel this is going to make it extremely tough for them.”

Barnett said he thought officers would “err on the side of caution” in the event that a case not acted upon turned serious. “I think John Key’s intentions were good but I think parents will feel let down by him.”

Email this storyPrint this story 5:00AM Thursday May 03, 2007

The amendment brokered by Prime Minister Helen Clark and National’s leader John Key that ended the battle over the bill to amend the law on smacking was passed by Parliament last night on a vote of 117-3.

Act’s two MPs, Rodney Hide and Heather Roy, and Independent MP Taito Phillip Field voted against it.

Mr Field was not in the debating chamber when the vote was taken. His vote was cast by proxy.
United Future leader Peter Dunne, who introduced the amendment, said the cross-party support was extraordinarily significant and a good day for Parliament.

“There has always been this concern … that good parents were going to be put at risk … were going to have the police banging down the door, [and] were going to be criminalised by this bill.”

The bill’s promoter, Green MP Sue Bradford, said she could happily back Mr Dunne’s amendment as it did not define the nature and level of force people could legitimately use against their children.

Parliament also accepted, by 116 votes to four, an amendment that commits the Government to reviewing the law two years after it comes into force.

The amendment was introduced by Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope several weeks ago, when the Government was trying to ease public concern about the bill.

Of course by definition – again her own – the prime minister cannot “leak” since as the Government’s spokesperson what she says is automatically mandated.

When it comes to the Budget, Miss Clark and Finance Minister Michael Cullen have taken that to a new level.

So when ministers decide to say something, be it more money for tertiary institutions or a dollop of new health spending, then that is a pre- budget announcement.

However, should any reporter ask a straight – or even tangential – question about the Budget they are met with much eye-rolling and “you should know better than to even ask” looks. Certainly Miss Clark’s deal- making over an amendment to Green MP Sue Bradford’s child discipline bill was kept firmly under wraps till the ink was dry, and the way cleared for yesterday’s exceptional joint press conference with National leader John Key.

Once it saw the light of day it prompted a predictable scramble between the two big parties, with both declaring relative victories.

Labour can claim it showed a leader in Miss Clark who could broker the deals and herd the cats in an MMP world.

At the same time it has helped remove the erroneous perception that responsible and mild parents would be hauled into court, without compromising on Miss Bradford’s bottom line that a level of acceptable hitting must never be defined.

National can claim it helped achieve a compromise that Miss Bradford had previously resisted, ensuring parents would not be criminalised for delivering a light smack.

(It has also removed the embarrassing prospect for National, in government, of drafting a bill that would provide a state mandate for violence against children, however minor.)

What remains unclear is whether National will suffer a backlash from those who think – rightly – that the amendment changes little beyond providing a level of “comfort” for concerned parents. Police discretion is now enshrined in the Bill, but let’s not forget that smacking for correction is still illegal.

The real winners, though, are the police.

As Parliament implicitly, or overtly, ruled out smacking that caused trifling or transitory harm (under the Chester Borrows amendment) or minor and inconsequential (under the proposed John Key wording) their job was made more difficult.

By a law of unintended consequences, there was a risk that every time MPs tried to define acceptable levels of smacking – and were defeated – the police’s ability to use their discretion diminished and the risk they would have to move against even light smacking increased.

That does raise the question of whether the clauses in the bill which define where force for non-corrective purposes is allowed are now necessary – but it is unlikely a tired Parliament will want to open that debate again.

The twin pillars of secrecy surrounding the Bradford bill and the Budget were, in fact, tightly intertwined.

A deal over the Bradford bill, which will now get Parliament’s overwhelming endorsement on May 16, clears the decks for the Budget the following day.

It may remain controversial for some time, as the police response to the new law is tested and examined, but with National on board it will lack a high profile political champion.

And make no mistake, this is a Budget the Government does not want overshadowed.

It comes as National consolidates a big poll lead and Labour fights to regain the initiative – and turn back any perception it is tired as its third term rolls on.

For the first time in many years Dr Cullen is not banging on about his Budget being boring, beige and predictable…….

……..Then, the heat around the Bradford bill may fade more quickly from the voters’ hearts and minds.

Rev Mike Weitenberg of the Wellington Metro Global Church Community, described it as a sugar-coated pill to cover a deadly blow to the New Zealand family.

“It’s food for custody battles, it’s food for neighbourhood disputes, it’s food for false accusations against parents by children who can’t get their own way.

“It’s a family invasion, it’s a cultural invasion and it’s an invasion attacking democracy.”

Wrestling with his conscience

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven last night revealed how close he came to crossing the floor over the Bradford bill.

Mr Duynhoven is one of Labour’s more conservative MPs, and was frequently challenged by National MPs to vote with opponents of the bill.

“On this issue I have been more torn than any other issue we have debated in this House,” he said.

“I have seriously considered whether I fitted still, whether my views and the basis of my value system were appropriate for the party I am in.”

Thursday, 3 May 2007, 9:51 am
Press Release: Direct Democracy Party Of NZ Press Release from the Direct Democracy Party:
DDP Disappointed In National Support For Smacking Bill

The Direct Democracy Party is disappointed that the National Party have decided to now support the anti smacking Bill being promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford, despite overwhelming public opposition to the Bill.

“There have been multiple polls, both public and privately monitored, that have recorded anywhere between 70% – 90% public opposition to Sue Bradford’s Bill – if a Binding Referendum (a cornerstone of Direct Democracy Party policy) were held on this issue, this legislation would have been consigned to the political scrapheap long ago” says Direct Democracy Party Leader Kelvyn Alp.

“It is clear that Police discretion not to prosecute will still allow police discretion to prosecute, thereby criminalising parents by default – however, the Police are not our greatest concern, but rather Child, Youth, and Family (CYF).”

“CYF will most certainly not “exercise discretion”as the Bill encourages the police to do. CYF will not be concerned with any “public interest” whatsoever. If this legislation passes in its current form, CYF will be able to say that smacking is illegal, and then arbitrarily intervene into the lives of innocent, decent, law-abiding families, families who now have everything to fear from this legislation becoming law in its current form.

“The Bradford anti-smacking Bill, now supported by the National Party, is a body blow to Democracy and for New Zealand families” says Mr Alp.

“The Direct Democracy Party gives an unequivocal commitment to the people of New Zealand that, if elected to Parliament in 2008, we will repeal the anti-smacking Bill in its entirety – the people of New Zealand who so overwhelmingly oppose this legislation deserve no less.”

Bradford continues to mislead the country – and blame the media for it!

On the 15th March 2007, Greens MP Sue Bradford put out a press release in relation to her bill amending section 59 saying “I have never called it an anti-smacking bill – my opponents did, and the media adopted the phrase. Smacking a child is already an assault under section 194 of the Crimes Act 1961. It has been this way for over a century. If my Bill is passed this will not change.” (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10668.html )

However, in a press release from 2003 when the bill was first mooted, the release is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” and says “The Greens are designing a bill that will stop parents physically punishing their children, in line with United Nations demands.” (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR6778.html )

This proves that the media and groups like Family First have been correct in labeling the bill the ‘anti-smacking’ bill, and that the supporters of the bill are trying to mislead the country regarding the effects of this bill.

The supporters of the bill have also been dishonest by saying that smacking a child is already an assault.

In 2003, Judge Ingalls QC, Family District Court Judge, said “as a matter of law the effect of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 in smacking of a child for the purposes of correction, was entirely lawful if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Reasonable force used against a child for the purposes of correction could not be, by law, categorized as physical abuse of a child.”

Grant Illingworth QC says “The relevant part of the current section 59 provides that every parent of a child and 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”. The important word is “justified”. The use of this word is the clearest possible indication that the act in question (reasonable use of force for correction) is NOT unlawful.”

While the Prime Minister has said “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child”, Sue Bradford has been forced to acknowledge that not all smacking is illegal under the law.

Family First calls on the MP’s to use education and policies that strengthen, not criminalise, families to tackle child abuse – and not to be misled by the rhetoric of the supporters of this bill who will do anything they can to mislead the public into supporting this bill.

ENDS

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10437332

The current law

What Section 59 of the Crimes Act says:

Every parent of a child and 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.

The proposed Law – then

What Sue Bradford’s bill said when she introduced it in July 2005

Section 59 of the principal act is repealed. The stated purpose of the bill: “To abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as justification for disciplining children.”

The proposed Law – now

What Sue Bradford’s bill says now after 18 months in a select committee [likely to pass]:

Section 59 is repealed and substituted with the following section on parental control: 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.

It then says: Nothing [in the above] or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

The stated purpose of the amended bill changed: “To make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

Proposed addition to bill

Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope has moved an amendment [likely to pass]:

To require the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development to review the effects of the new act after it has been in place for two years.

Proposed change before house national MP

Chester Borrows’ amendments to be debated tonight define the limits of unacceptable force [likely to fail]:

The use of force is unreasonable if it … causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory and trifling; or any weapon or tool is used; or it is inflicted by any mean that is cruel, degrading, or terrifying. He wants the purpose of the bill changed to state: “To make better provision for the parental control of children by limiting the use of force for the purpose of correction.”

John Key’s failed proposal

The National leader tried but failed to find support for a proposal between Borrows and Bradford:

It would have adopted the Bradford purpose of the bill … “abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction”. He proposed a new Section 59: “Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential.”

FINALLY AGREEMENT
Prime Minister Helen Clark uses the language of the Key proposal to give guidance to the police to ignore inconsequential breaches of the new law, with the additional wording:

To avoid doubt it is affirmed that 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, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007
National to vote for the anti smacking bill

National is to vote for the anti smacking bill after National and Labour agreed to an amendment last night. They should have done this ages ago.

What the amendment says

To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.

What this means, if this bill is written into the clause of the Act, is that police do not have to uphold the law in all cases. It is a compromise, it is not ideal, but it may be politically achievable. However if it is written into the preliminary guidelines, it has no legal effect and police can ignore it.

What the leaders should have added is that if police have discretion not to prosecute, they also have discretion as to whether they report such discipline to Child,Youth and Family. Its my understanding that as the bill stands, police will have to report all such reported discipline to CYFS. So if they have discretion in prosecuting, they should also have discretion in notification to CYFS.

http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR6778.html

Justice | Children’s Issues | All Press Releases

Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill
Sue Bradford MP, Green Party Children’s Issues Spokesperson

6th October 2003

The Greens are designing a bill that will stop parents physically punishing their children, in line with United Nations demands.

Green MP Sue Bradford says her bill will repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, the provision that condones the use of physical force by parents against children.

We want to end the situation where there is a legal defence to striking a child.”

A new report from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child says it is deeply concerned New Zealand has not changed the law which allows parents to use so-called “reasonable” force against their children.

Ms Bradford said today parents have used Section 59 to get away with, not only smacking their children, but also whacking them with bits of wood and other objects.

“I can’t understand why the Government is delaying doing anything about Section 59 until the next election year. The safety and welfare of our children is too important to put on hold.”

Ms Bradford, Green Children’s Issues Spokesperson, said it was the inalienable right of every child to be free from any form of violence or abuse.

“Parents are supposed to be protectors, not attackers, and children should feel totally safe at home. Section 59 adds to the whole culture of abuse of children that is still so rampant in New Zealand society.”

——————————————————————————–
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand > Green Library > Press Releases

Home | Join | Donate | Get Active | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | Privacy | Copyright

Email: webmaster@greens.org.nz | greenparty@greens.org.nz

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

P.O. Box 13-683 JohnsonvillePress Release

1 May 2007

Cracks Widen in ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill Support

MPs must relegate Bradford’s bill to the trash can if parents cannot be assured in the legislation that its purpose is NOT to have parents and those in the place of parents charged with an assault on a child for applying a smack with “reasonable force” for the purpose of “correction”. Bradford and the Prime Minister Helen Clark are expecting the public to believe their word that they will not be charged and prosecuted because “police will use their discretion” and will not charge them following formal complaints for smacking. That’s not good enough for the vast majority of thinking New Zealand parents. As the Dominion Post editorial points out today: “opponents of her [Bradford’s] legislation are entitled to take at face value the provision that states nothing in the exemptions of the legislation “justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. That, however, much she may deny it, is a ban on what people would regard as smacking.” (1 May, B4).

The traffic speeding analogy is often used by Bradford’s supporters to support their claim that the police will not prosecute parents who continue to smack their kids for correction, in the same way that police have discretion in whether they criminalise a speeding motorist. Katherine Rich, spokesperson for Education no less, has relied on this poor analogy to defend the bill that no one else in her caucus is supporting. She used this flawed analogy in the weekend:

“Many extreme – and public – cases of child abuse involved parents who thought they were using appropriate force, said Rich. The repeal of Section 59 would send a message that using physical force against children was not appropriate.

“Criminalising is such an emotive word. If you drive at 101km/h, that doesn’t make you a criminal. But if you drive at 140km/h, then it’s far more clear-cut.” (NZ Herald 29 April).

Rich falsely claims that police officers deciding whether to investigate and lay charges for a reported smacking incident will be in the same position as traffic officers have who make decisions based on discretion whether or not to lay a criminal charge for speeding, rather than just issuing an infringement notice. This is a false analogy.

The police cannot only lay a criminal charge once a driver is recorded as having exceeded any given speed limit by 40 kms/hr or more. An automatic 28-day suspension of the driving licence is applied and the driver faces a criminal charge in Court. At sentencing there will be a minimum further disqualification of the licence of 3 months and furthermore, the possibility of a fine and/or imprisonment.

Police cannot lay criminal charges for speeding when a vehicle is driven at less than 40 km/hr over the speed limit so have no discretion in such cases. Such a charge can only be laid if other aspects of the law are broken (e.g. dangerous driving).

Motorists will generally incur a fine and demerit points for speeds between 111 and 140 kms/hr. Again, there is no discretion to lay criminal charges unless there are other factors involved (proximity to schools, careless driving etc.).

The only area under current policy where discretion on the part of police can apply for cars is where speeds of up to 11 kms/hr over the speed limit are recorded. In issuing a warning, rather than an infringement notice (fine) in such circumstances, the police are NOT suggesting that the action of the driver is reasonable or acceptable of lawful. Quite the opposite. ALL SPEEDNG IS AGAINST THE LAW. It constitutes either a traffic offence or a criminal offence. There is no justification offered in law for a member of the public to travel at over 140 kms/hr and escape conviction and no provision in law informing them that it is lawful to exceed 100 kms/hr.

The police authorities have confirmed that all formal complaints of smacking for correction will have to be treated as potential criminal offences (domestic violence) and will require thorough investigation (police statements from witnesses, victim and child abusing parents to be recorded and the collecting of medical evidence that may need to be submitted at a deposition hearing etc.). If the law’s purpose as stated is “abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction” the police will have to be vigilant in exterminating the last vestige of any smacking culture in New Zealand by using the full force of the law. Good parents who break the rules against smacking will need to have the force of the law applied to make them comply.

Bradford and Clark know full well that the effect of Bradford’s bill is to make all forms of force used by parents for correction, illegal. Parents have a right to know if their actions constitute an offence in law, just as drivers have a right to have speed limits regularly notified to them by way of traffic signs, and made clearly visible from the driving lane. If the Ministry of Transport is not prepared to inform drivers by proper signs, then it has no right to prosecute drivers for breaking speed limits known only to the authorities! Failure to do so means in practice that drivers cannot be convicted.

Parents have a right to know in law what level of force, if any, can be used for “correction”. In the existing law s. 59 sets the limit: “reasonable force in the circumstances”. This is perfectly fine. However, if that provision is removed then they potentially face prosecution for using ANY level of force. Bradford argues that no limit needs to be set because police will not be enforcing charges against minor force such as smacking, even though her law declares such actions illegal and need to be abolished. She is relying on some sort of de facto law that the police will come up with to set limits of force. This is a nonsense law.

If the term “reasonable care” meant nothing drivers could never be prosecuted for reckless driving. Unreasonable care involves placing the driver or passengers and others or in danger etc. Ironically the term “reasonable force” is a term Bradford has still retained to provide limits for use of force in the four exemptions under section (1).

The boundary between reasonable and unreasonable use of force is determined by the police before laying charges for assault under the existing section 59, taking into account the facts of the case and the circumstances involved in the domestic discipline etc. The amended Bradford bill recognises that such boundaries do exist and can be defined with respect to force used in the four situations covered in section 1 (a-d). However, it is the view of the bill’s proponents that no force is reasonable when used for correction and this is enshrined in the bill by the specific removal of the existing defence applying to force for correction. Its removal, for the first time, makes all forms of smacking for correction illegal.

Under Bradford’s bill all use of reasonable force for correction, including smacking, becomes a criminal offence. The law does not have a special provision for light smacks – worthy only of a mere traffic infringement notice (to use the flawed analogy she relies on). That there is no lesser category for “light smacks” comparable to traffic infringements proves that the purpose of the bill is to abolish ALL use of force for correction.

If Bradford’s bill becomes law she knows that one of its effects will be to make it legal to use reasonable force on a child to minimise harm (s. 1a). Why would it be legal one might ask? Because under the new law there would be a specific justification for the use of reasonable force in such circumstances (“…every parent…. Is justified….”).

But the same justification exists in current law for the use of such force for correction – including smacking. And yet Bradford and Clark have repeatedly claimed publicly that under current law lightly smacking a child for correction is illegal. When asked why it is illegal they respond: Because any form of smack applied for any reason constitutes an “assault” under s. 2 of the Crimes Act (1961)? This statement is false. In the above example involving harm minimisation (s. 1 a) Bradford affirms that the force is used legally, but then contradicts herself when considering force used for correction under current law. The same justifications are used which mean that the actions are legal.

END

5:00AM Tuesday May 01, 2007 By Simon Collins

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10437107

Dr Robert Larzelere has been brought to New Zealand by groups opposed to Sue Bradford’s bill. Photo / Brett Phibbs

One of the world’s leading experts on disciplining children says parents need smacking as a “back-up” for other forms of discipline for children aged from 2 to 6.

Dr Robert Larzelere, an American who says he has written three of the six main reviews of the scientific literature on smacking, has been brought to New Zealand by lobby groups opposing Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal the law allowing parents to use reasonable force to discipline their children.

He will be in Wellington today for a meeting with National MPs convened by Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, whose amendment defining reasonable force will be voted on in Parliament tomorrow.

Dr Larzelere will meet Sue Bradford tomorrow. He will also meet two New Zealand First MPs who support her bill, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples, whose party will discuss the Bradford bill today.

In the debates in the scientific literature, Dr Larzelere has been the leading proponent of smacking.

Canadian Joan Durrant, who was brought to New Zealand by the Government last year, has led the opposing argument that smacking produces a more violent society, citing Sweden as a model of a society where a smacking ban has reduced violence.

Dr Larzelere, 62, attends a Baptist Church near the university where he works in Oklahoma, but he rejects Dr Durrant’s allegation that this makes him biased.

He says he smacked his two now-adult children “occasionally”.

“When they were small, I would use a warning count one to three,” he said yesterday. “In almost all cases I’d get action just as I got to three, so I only had to smack them a few times.”

His research over 20 years showed that the best way to stop young children misbehaving was to use reasoning backed up by punishment – initially non-physical punishment such as time out, but with a smack if the children refused to co-operate.

“To me, it seems like today we polarise all arguments to ridiculous extremes and we don’t do so well at finding the balance in the middle.

“So I have tried to be as scientific as possible to inform this debate, rather than having the people choose between the two polarised positions.”

His research showed that to be effective, smacking should be used only as a “conditional” back-up, not as a primary form of discipline.

“The best way to use it is this back-up smacking – non-abusive, two swats with an open hand to the rear end, on 2- to 6-year-old children,” Dr Larzelere said.

He would support a ban on smacking babies, and in one published paper said smacking could be counter-productive for children of 7 or over when they were old enough to “internalise” the rules of good behaviour.

Yesterday he stopped short of supporting a ban on smacking children over 6 because of one study that found that physical punishment of 13-year-old African-Americans made them less aggressive three years later.

“So although I think it should be phased out as quickly as possible [as a child gets older], I see exceptions that suggest it shouldn’t be an absolute rule.”

He said colleagues who had worked in parenting education in Norway, where smacking is banned at all ages, reported that Norwegian parents were “immobilised” by not knowing how to control their children.

“So their children run wild, according to newspaper reports,” he said.

Similarly in Sweden, where the legal defence of using force to discipline children was abolished in 1957, criminal assaults by under-15-year-olds against other 7- to 14-year-olds had increased by 519 per cent in the period from 1981 to 1994.

Dr Durrant argued this was because of more reporting of assaults by children against other children.

But Dr Larzelere said that did not explain why the assault rate rose more in the younger age groups than in older age groups, which he sees as evidence that youthful misbehaviour has worsened since the ban on smacking.

P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville

Press Release

1 May 2007

Call to Abandon Bradford’s Flawed Bill

A guilt-ridden Ms Katherine Rich MP, mother of two children and Education spokesperson for the National Party, candidly confessed to the nation in the weekend that she was “way out of control” and “totally lost it” when she lightly smacked her son Jonathan on a couple of occasions for some apparent minor misdemeanours. Rich, a National List MP, who is the only National MP continuing to support Green Party MP Sue Bradford’s unpopular ‘anti-smacking’ bill, stated:

“I smacked Jonathan a couple of times – but I’m deeply ashamed of that. I’ve thought about those situations and it was more to do with my tiredness and inability to cope than trying to find genuine ways of directing him.

“The time when I just totally lost it because … sometimes you just lose all tolerance … he turned around to me and said, ‘Mummy, why did you do that, you’re supposed to be happy’.

“I decided very early on it didn’t serve any purpose. I recall seeing the fear on his face when I raised my hand. I realised I was the one out of control – he was just being a child.” (NZ Herald 29 April).

The Society believes that very few thinking New Zealand parents will be persuaded by this sort of heart-felt confession, that they too need to do penance for with Rich by lending support to Bradford’s deeply flawed anti-family bill. Of course most loving parents, like Rich, would concede that they might have made the odd mistake (e.g. slight over-reaction) in dealing with disciplinary matters, when tired and struggling to cope with their kids bad behaviour. It is ludicrous and deeply insulting that the promoters of Bradford’s bill continue to suggest that genuine loving parents, who might occasionally smack their kids for correction, “abuse” their kids using physical “violence”. Like Rich they appear ideologically-driven by the misguided belief that nothing justifies the use of any kind of force for the purpose of the correction of children and appear to actually believe that light smacking actually constitutes “child abuse”.

Many parents actually think that Rich has “totally lost it” by supporting Bradford’s pointless bill for the reasons she has stated. Over 80% of New Zealanders polled have consistently opposed the bill which Rich is hailing as the answer to New Zealand’s child abuse problem. Most see the bill and her support of it as a direct attack on the family. They’re sick and tired of the dishonest rhetoric coming from the bill’s sponsor Ms Bradford. As the Dominion Post editorial stated today “…opponents of her legislation are entitled to take at face value the provision that states nothing in the exemptions of the legislation ‘justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction’. That, however, much she [Bradford] may deny it, is a ban on what most people would regard as smacking.’ (May 1, B4).

Most parents of young children will appreciate the circumstances that may have led to Ms Rich’s ‘disciplinary’ actions involving light smacks. However, without knowing the specifics it is hard to comment on whether her actions qualified as a genuine and justified case for corrective physical discipline where reasonable force was required, or not. The fact that Jonathan did not know what the smack was for and had to ask the reason why it was applied, suggests that Ms Rich failed in the basics of corrective discipline. A smack must be judiciously applied only after adequate reasons have been given to the child and the child complies to receiving the corrective. It must be appropriate in the circumstances and never be administered in anger or merely to release the frustrations of an exasperated parent or person in the place of a parent. The fact that Rich was at her wits’ end when she says she smacked Jonathan could suggest that he had repeatedly disobeyed and/or ignored her instructions. However, the fact that his aggravating behaviour is described as arising from him “just being a child” suggests that it may not have been appropriate “in the circumstances” to apply a smack.

Whatever the circumstances were, most New Zealand parents would understand the type of situation Rich might have faced with her son Jonathan and would sympathise with her frustrations. Most parents cringe from their actions when, upon reflection, they realise that they reacted inappropriately in seeking to correct their child for wrongdoing. A good parent would always seek to promptly correct and modify his/her behavioural responses in the light of their mistakes, perhaps requesting advice from his or her spouse or wider family. However, a smack using reasonable force, does not constitute “child abuse”, as Rich seems to imply it does. It is hard to understand why she continues to support Bradford’s seriously flawed and pointless private member’s bill that has as its stated purpose to:

“… make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction”. [Emphasis added].

The bill’s original purpose prior to its amendment during the select committee stages stated, to:

“… abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children”.

Both opponents and supporters of the bill do share common ground in genuinely wanting a reduction in child abuse and both agree that this bill will NOT achieve this goal. In the light of these facts it is farcical that MP’s supporting Bradford’s bill have amended the original bill in such a way that as to actually assert something they do not actually believe: that “violence” against children (child abuse) will be reduced once “parental force for the purpose of correction” is abolished: a clear case of either self-delusion, or contradiction and dishonesty on the part of the bill’s supporters. Furthermore, it is ludicrous that the bill uses the verb to abolish (“abolishing the use of parental force”) and yet Bradford and the Prime Minister, Miss Helen Clark have repeatedly told the public that the bill is not about banning smacking and is only about removing the defence of reasonable force from s. 59.

It’s time to be honest in this messy, time-wasting debate! Light smacking for correction constitutes force used for correction. “Abolishing” means getting rid of. Therefore, the intention of the bill must include getting rid of the use of light smacking for correction! To say otherwise is to be dishonest. Reinforcing this conclusion is the fact that the bill only allows the defence of “reasonable force” for acts of force used against children in four specific circumstances (section 1 [a] to [d]) – four exemptions – but removes this defence from the Principal Act where it is applied specifically to acts involving “correction” (involving “domestic discipline”).

Bradford’s bill, in its current form, including the amendments, contains nothing to back up the bill’s supporters’ claims that its purpose is: [1] NOT to ban smacking, but [2] rather is focused just on removing the defence of “reasonable force” against prosecution of an adult (parent) for an assault against a child, in cases involving correction. As shown above a reasonable and logical interpretation of the wording of the bill (see Dominion Post quote above) must lead one to draw the conclusion that the bill, once put into law, will make it a criminal offence to lightly smack a child for the purpose of “correction”. If that was not the intention of the bill as Helen Clark and Sue Bradford claim, then it must be stated in the bill as Nation Party MP Chester Borrows and his Party leader John Key have cogently argued, by introducing their respective amendments to the bill, both of which have been flatly rejected by Bradford.

You’d think I’d be inured to political stupidity by now. It appears I am not.

In a wonderful piece of self-gratulation, Tariana Turia (Maori Party) blamed Christianity and colonisation for the introduction of smacking to the Maori people as a form of discipline.

I’m no fan of Sue Bradford’s bill, I freely admit. But neither am I a fan of someone who appears to be placing the blame for a problem in the here and now – child abuse in some Maori families[*] – on the actions of colonising Europeans over two hundred years ago!

Let’s backtrack.

First, Sue Bradford’s intention was to make the use of violence unacceptable against children. A goal I applaud. She’s chosen to do it by attempting to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows reasonable force as a defense when under charges of ‘over-disciplining’ your children. Unfortunately, politics has got in the way, and we’re left with a big ugly mess, given incredibly bad press, very little public support, and very little public understanding.

Second, it’s true that statistically speaking, Maori families have higher reported rates of family violence. I agree that that’s a situation which needs change. I agree that the colonisation of New Zealand changed the Maori people irrevocably. It introduced the concept of Christianity. Shall we examine some Christian principles?

The Bible says that children should be disciplined. We all know “Spare the rod, spoil the child”. But child abuse was never, never, what Christianity preached. I’m not even Christian, and I have better understanding than that! Jesus himself loved children. He taught peace, taught respect for one’s fellow man. Taught that a husband and wife should love and respect each other, and in turn teach and care for their children in a loving way.

Shall we also look at historically provable things the Maori, as a people, did prior to European colonisation of them?

Wiped out the Moriori (historically debatable, I admit)
Had bloody wars between tribes
Drove the moa into extinction
Hardly the record of a peaceful people whose whanau were only corrupted by the heinous introduction of the European settlers.

Further, has it escaped Tariana Turia’s notice that many European families, both now and in the past, also had parents who were perfectly capable of disciplining their children without physical violence?

Think about how society has changed, too. Remember the time where it took a village to bring up a child? Where parents had support from the surrounding community, were near their parents, their siblings, in constant communication with their friends and families, had support networks to rely on? How many parents today bring up their children as best they can, with parents and families many miles away, both having to work each day, without their whanau surrounding them?

So, here’s my advice, Tariana. Think about what you can do to support the people you represent, here and now. Instead of trying to foist away the blame for today on people two hundred years ago, look for ways to make it better tomorrow.

Of course, my voice means nothing. I’m only one of the …… Pakeha who corrupted your people. Shall I make sure the door doesn’t slap me …… on the way out?

(* I specify Maori abuse as Tariana Turia is representative of the Maori party. I am thoroughly aware that Europeans and other racial groups are represented in the statistics about child abuse. Thanks.)

Search and Destroy – Down Syndrome

Right to Life deplores the decision of the Minister of Health the Hon Pete Hodgson to request the National Screening Unit to advise him on how to implement a national screening programme for Down syndrome. A programme for screening all pregnant women for Down syndrome is a search and destroy mission. Those women who tested positive for Down syndrome would be encouraged to abort their child. The sole purpose of this programme would be to define who shall live and who shall die. This is unjust discrimination against the disabled. Every child at conception is endowed by its creator with an inalienable right to life. A child does not lose its right to life because it has a genetic condition.

The Minister of Health has a responsibility to protect life and to promote the health of the community; his action reveals that the government does not welcome the birth of children with Down syndrome. Its response is to sanction and fund the killing of children with Down syndrome; this is eugenics which promotes a humanistic quality of life ethic which decrees that only the perfect have a right to life. The Minister in this action is promoting a culture of death. The right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation; it is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it, its universal denial would fail to recognise the dignity of man.

There are many people who are born with Down syndrome who have a good quality of life and who make a valuable contribution to the family and society.

Right to Life welcomes the Minister’s decision to discontinue risky diagnostic tests that have been leading to the miscarriage of dozens of unborn children.

This proposed national screening programme should be seen in the context of the public debate on the government supported repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act that would outlaw the smacking of children. The Prime Minister has said that her government wishes to give a clear message to the community that violence against children is unacceptable. Violence against children begins in the womb. The government is giving the message that they support the killing of unborn children, including those with Down syndrome, but that after birth you may not smack them.

Monday April 30, 2007The fate of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill appears to rest with the Maori Party caucus which will discuss it tomorrow in the light of a poll showing overwhelming 80 per cent opposition to it by Maori.

The party has backed the bill but the resounding Maori opposition may create pressure to back a proposal by National Party leader John Key to allow “minor and inconsequential” smacking.

It is believed to have been a consistent topic of concern raised at the consultation hui the four Maori Party MPs have held up and down New Zealand during the three-week recess.

If the Maori Party decides to back the Key amendment, it would have the numbers to pass.

But Sue Bradford has said she would withdraw it in those circumstances.

The bill, which returns to the House on Wednesday, outlaws the use of physical force against children for purposes of correction. It allows it to prevent a child from engaging in harmful, disruptive, illegal or offensive behaviour.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia indicated at the weekend that the party would continue to support the bill, despite 80 per cent of Maori in the Marae Digipoll survey opposing it. But she could not be contacted last night to discuss the Key proposal.

She said at the weekend the present law allowed a legal defence against abuse. “We will not support abuse. We have got to show leadership. If we are looking at all the statistics we have got the worst statistics in the OECD. ”

Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia was also committed to supporting it, saying he saw the “other side” of smacking. “I visit the refuges.

“We know that we have rampant violence in some areas for a whole host of reasons within our families. We must address that.”

Mr Key said he had spoken to Mrs Turia on Saturday night about his proposal and said she had a very clear understanding of the law. She would discuss it with the caucus tomorrow.

“We can’t do it without the Maori Party,” Mr Key told the Herald.

He believes the Maori Party might be more tempted to back the amendment since the Marae poll.

He also said if Sue Bradford’s bill passed and it was challenged in a citizens-initiated referendum at next year’s election he would be inclined to change the law to reflect his own proposal.

Former United Future MP Larry Baldock said last night that he had had 163,150 signatures since March 1.

That makes it likely he will get the requisite 300,000 (10 per cent of registered electors) by March 1 next year in order to get a referendum.

“They had better prepare themselves for a referendum – and the bill hasn’t passed yet.” The petition asks:

* Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

* Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse?

Mr Baldock said he had tried to discourage his own associates from attending the Destiny Church rally at Parliament on Wednesday, when the bill returns for further debate.

“This is not a church issue. This has never been just a bunch of Christians who want to retain the right to smack their kids. It is 80 per cent of New Zealanders.”

from http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz

Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:

I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is “minor and inconsequential”, while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.

This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.

It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.

We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.

My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.

The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:

Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.

If an MP votes against that amendment, it will make it pretty clear they are voting to ban correctional smacking.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/index.cfm?a_id=164

In a sense, both were playing to their parties’ strengths.

In a sense, neither can be condemned for that.

It leaves the anti-smacking bill exactly where it was: legislation that will outlaw the use of physical force to teach children a lesson or for “correction”, but with two different predictions about how the law will be applied.

Supporters are certain the police will not prosecute parents who smack their children lightly – just as the police don’t press assault charges now for such action.

Opponents caution that a new law that specifically bans force to discipline children will invite prosecutions for a light smack.

Key offered a significant compromise this week on his party’s previous position on the anti-smacking bill.

He accepted the bill’s primary function – to ban the use of force against children for correction on one proviso that it explicitly allow for “minor and inconsequential” smacks in the course of parenting.

What he proposed this week was no more than the assurances given by Prime Minister Helen Clark and Bradford that parents who smack lightly would not be criminalised.

Instead of trusting their predictions of police interpretation, Key wanted the proviso written into the law.

While there is an inherent contradiction in what he offered – banning physical punishment but allowing it a little bit – it is no more of a contradiction than that already existing in Bradford’s bill.

Bradford rejected the compromise because it was inconsistent with the principle driving the bill.

She wants to put children on the same footing as adults and to remove the notion that it is excusable to use any form of violence on them – children – other than a few exceptions outlined in the bill such as to save them or others from harm.

To define in law what level of violence was allowed against children would be like trying to define what level of violence was allowed by men against women.

And anyway, Key’s compromise is a watered-down version of the amendments proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, which are set to be voted down next Wednesday.

Bradford is a mother of five. She has said from the first reading that it was not her intention to criminalise ordinary parents, that her target was those who hit or beat their children seriously.

The difficulty is that her intentions conflict with the actual bill.

She may not want police to prosecute smackers but the bill leaves it open to just such a response.

It is almost inconceivable Parliament will pass a law that explicitly bans physical punishment and then expects the police to prosecute only extreme cases.

It would have been a lot plainer if Bradford had said something like “this bill outlaws physical discipline against children and, even though I don’t want the police to prosecute smackers, they may do so because smacking is violence on a milder scale”.

But if she had promoted a hard line, or a bright line in the law, she would have kissed goodbye to Labour’s bloc support and relegated it back to a conscience issue, which is probably what it should have been.

Key’s failure this week will not alter the likelihood of the bill passing narrowly. It would have given Parliament the satisfaction of having broad-based support for such a contentious law.

Key will try to get as much mileage as he can from here.

He will now approach Labour which will almost certainly dismiss it as a stunt.

Any acceptance by Labour would also prompt Bradford to withdraw the bill (which might provide private relief to Labour if it is haemorrhaging support from women over its decision to back the bill).

Key, whether genuine or not – and Bradford believes he is – has manoeuvred himself into an enviable position on this issue.

If Labour agrees to his amendment, he gets the credit for showing some leadership on the issue. If it tells him to get lost, it rejects what is seen as a sensible way through a difficult issue.

Even if he fails, he wins.

Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
http://www.spcs.org.nz 27 April 2007

Bradford Fails to Answer Questions on anti-smacking bill

The Society is very concerned that Ms Bradford appears unable or unwilling to answer key questions put to her regarding her unpopular private members bill that is opposed by over 80% of New Zealanders.

In an Open Letter to her dated 23 March (copied below) the Society sought urgent clarification on four matters relating to her contradictory public pronouncements on her bill that seeks to remove the defence of “reasonable force” for “correction” (that can be used currently by a parent against a charge of assault on a child), from Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). The explanation given by the Green Party for her lack of response is that she is “very busy”. Green Party worker, Ms Fran Tyler, has undertaken to give her the hurry up.

Tens of thousands of concerned parents who may face charges of criminal assault for lightly smacking their children for the purposes of corrective discipline, should Bradford’s flawed anti-family bill pass into law, await answers to the important questions the Society has raised. Bradford says the aim of her bill is to make it illegal for any parent or person in the place of parent to use any “force” for the purpose of “correction”. However, the bill does not specifically define what constitutes “force”.

On the other hand, she has agreed to retain the defence of “reasonable force”, but only for parents who she claims might face a charge of criminal assault for removing a child from harm’s way etc. But she is adamant that this defence cannot be used if the action is undertaken with the intent or purpose of “correction”: in whole or in “part”. In effect she has made an ass of the law. Current law provides a clear justification for the use of “reasonable force” by parents for correction. Bradford is seeking to make that which is perfectly legal, illegal, and thereby she undermines the authority of good and loving parents.

OPEN LETTER TO MS SUE BRADFORD MP

RE: Sue Bradford’s Private Members Bill dealing with Repeal of s. 59 that is opposed by 80% – 90% of New Zealanders polled.

23 March 2007

Dear Ms Fran Tyler

Please thank Ms Bradford for the answers she has supplied to the Society’s questions (1-4) re her bill.

[See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00301.htm]. However, having studied her answers, we are unable to comprehend how her position can be logically coherent within a legal framework. All our members feel the same way.

Please present to her a few short follow-up questions seeking urgent clarification. We would appreciate her prompt assistance.

Re Queston 1.

If as Ms Bradford stated on TV One’s Agenda programme: “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” – why has she in responsed to Q 1 by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” [Emphasis added]. We believe that it follows logically from the latter statement that some smacking is LEGAL; therefore the Agenda programme comment is inconsistent and misleading to say the least.

Questions: seeking clarification:

1.. How does Ms Bradford reconcile the apparent inconsistency between her two statements quoted and b.. What forms of smacking does she consider legal under the current Crimes Act? c.. Is it the smacking that is legal under current law or that which is illegal under current law that her bill intends to make illegal, or is it both forms? d.. Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful under current law for a parent or person in the place of a parent to use “reasonable force” in the context of domestic discipline, for the purpose of correcting a child who exhibits extreme defiance and/or disobedience despite a number of clearly defined warnings to desist from wrong behaviour (see section 59 of Crimes Act)? e.. Is it the intention in her bill to prevent parents from correcting their children by using ANY actions that involve “reasonable force” in the circumstances? (vi) If so why, and why particularly has she sought to make illegal the use of ALL forms of force for correction carried out by the parent to achieve compliance from the disobediant/defiant child? Re. Questions 2-3

(vi) In the light of Ms Bradford’s negative answers concerning the lawful use of “reasonable force” in self-defence (s. 48) and by ship’s captains (s. 60), which we accept as correct; why did she state on Agenda “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” when she knew full well that this is untruthful (s. s. 59) and has now done a U-turn on by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” (see above)? [Note the “reasonable force” defence provisions in s. 59, 60 and 48 serve the same purposes in protected those who use the force and those subject to the force].

Re Queston 4

(vi) Ms Bradford agreed to amendments to her bill which she now admits she did not feel were necessary, but agreed to in order to alleviate some doubts by some submitters – as she puts it “assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it [use of reasonable force for removing kids from harms waty etc.] may not be so justified”. In the light of these concessions to submitters, why is she opposed to a clarification of s. 59 (the Borrows amendment) so that judges can point jury members to a clearer definition of “reasonable force” as it applies to actions taken by parents in corrective discipline on children?

Yours sincerely

David Lane

Secretary

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville

http://www.spcs.org.nz

ENDS

How Caregivers will be Criminalised Under Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ Bill
Press Release 27 April 2007 http://www.spcs.org.nz

If Green MP Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking bill’ is passed into law, increasing numbers of childcare workers (e.g. creche and kindergarten workers) and those in the place of parents (e.g. grandparents, foster parents and guardians) will be charged with criminal assault by the police for lightly smacking children for “correction” purposes and will find themselves before the Courts defending actions which the vast majority of good parents consider perfectly justified as part of good domestic disciplinary procedures. As one leading New Zealand barrister, Mr Peter McKenzie QC, has reported in a comprehensive legal opinion on the effect of the Bill, some could even find themselves charged with criminal assault for applying “force” for removing troublesome and recalcitrant kids to “time-out” or “naughty-mat” zones because the discipline was done with the intention and for the purpose of “correction”. The intention of Bradford’s flawed bill, as clearly stated, is to make the use of all force illegal when used for “correction” by parents or those in the place of parents.

Sadly, the New Zealand public has too often seen the ugly face of badly applied law. Some cases have involved the domestic discipline of children (the case of the criminalising [for assault] of foster parents Don and Anne Eathorne through the actions of CYFS) and others involving public facilities where children are cared for by dedicated staff (The notorious Christchurch Creche case). An example of the latter, is the case involving a creche worker – Judith Anne Hende – who was wrongfully convicted and sentenced in a District Court for an assault on a child in her care and charged with wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefying a child (W) under her care. In 1995 the guilty verdict for stupefying was set aside by the Court of Appeal and the conviction was quashed. The Court directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered. Hende had been fined $1,000 by the District Court on the charge of stupefying a child.

More important to the debate over Bradford’s anti-family bill is the fact that when the Court of Appeal dealt with Hende’s conviction for assault, its ruling was that it be set aside and “the appellant be discharged without conviction”.

The Queen v Judith Anne Hende (CA196/95)
Coram: Eichelbaum CJ, Hardie Boys J and Henry J

Hearing 24 July 1995 (at Auckland)

On 18 September 1995 Judge Eichelbaum CJ issued the Court of Appeal’s Judgment that in part dealt with the assault charge against Ms Judith Anne Hende and he “discharged [her] without conviction”. Hende, the appellant, was a licensee of a creche and had appealed against her conviction and sentence for assault and other matters, by a District Court. The assault charge was laid by the police under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act. It was alleged that she assaulted a child (S) under the age of 14.

Eichelbaum CJ stated in his Judgment:

“The particulars alleged were ‘hitting child when [the child was] going berserk’ … The only prosecution evidence of the assault was in the depositions of two witnesses who were unavailable to give evidence at the trial.” [Permission was granted by the Judge for the depositions to be read at the trial.]… “The second witness (the sister of the first) said she saw the appellant smack the child twice with her open hand on his bottom, two smacks one after the other on the same occasion. Cross-examined briefly, she agreed her memory about what exactly happened was a bit hazy, and that the smacks would not have hurt.”

“Given, however, that as to the nature of the assault the Court had only the bare words quoted [by the witness], there was no justification for treating the incident as involving anything more than a pat on the bottom. Although technically an assault, it did not merit the stigma of a conviction and the fine [of $250] imposed”

“…the appellant has been through a seven day trial and two hearings before this Court, and the events are now three to four years old”

This tragic case highlights how police, even after presumably applying careful discretion (we doubt it in this case), will readily lay charges for a mere “technical assault” for incidents involving a mere “pat on the bottom”, and allow such trivial matters to be taken to Court leading to the stigma of a conviction and a fine being imposed on an innocent child care worker. Police merely do their job when Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) and similar agencies – the so-called “experts” in child advocacy – fail to apply commonsense, are consumed by their own misguided zeal and ideological bias and are goaded into action by parents with their own agendas. The Police regularly hand the troublesome matter from the basket labelled “Too Hard” – to the Courts – relying on the legal “experts” to decide. Police are too busy chasing serial rapists, child molesters, bank heist professionals, and those committing aggravated robberies and sexual assaults, to be bothered too much by cases involving children being patted on the bottom.

It is staggering and hard to believe that such trivial and ridiculous cases as those involving some of the charges laid against Judith Hende, end up in Court even without Ms Bradford’s bill becoming law! When it does become law – God forbid – the gloves are off! Agencies like CYFS will pursue all manner of trivial prosecutions against decent parents who seek to administer corrective discipline to their children for serious wrongdoing. They will use the police to hide behind. Bradford’s absurd and naïve claim that police discretion is the only filter needed to ensure that parents will not be criminalised for trivial cases involving light smacking etc. deserves the cynical response “Yeah Right!”.

It is noteworthy that on the charges of “ill-treatment” for which Hende was convicted by the District Court and sentenced to 200 hours community work, the appeal was allowed on a number of counts and a new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal. A number of the key verdicts were therefore ordered to be set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The New Zealand public have overwhelmingly indicated via numerous opinion polls that they strongly oppose the repeal of section 59 and oppose Bradford’s “anti-smacking bill” – one that even if passed, will make no difference to rectifying the serious problem of child abuse in this country. The SPCS wants the serious problem of child abuse properly investigated by the government and the real root causes addressed urgently.

‘The real school bully isn’t in the schoolyard’
Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 9:33 am
Press Release: http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Mass gathering at Parliament Grounds
Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm
http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
24 April 2007

‘The real school bully isn’t in the schoolyard’

Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, ‘we do so under threat.’

In response to Mr Keast’s comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: “The law is the law.’ Now lets take the anti smacking bill.

If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, ‘the law is the law!’ Government’s planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.

To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week – Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.

Event details can be viewed on http://www.familyvalues.net.nz

ENDS