Family Integrity

Category: Referendum

  • Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    Friday, 26 June 2009, 11:51 am

    Anti-smacking legislation counterproductive and an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    Peter Tashkoff, Spokesperson for Maori issues

    Anti-smacking legislation is not simply useless, but is in fact making the problem worse. What’s more it is an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga of whanau, ACT New Zealand Maori Issues Spokesperson Peter Tashkoff said today.

    “This well meaning legislation is based on a false ideology that attacks the Tino-Rangatiratanga of families, and has had the opposite effect to what even its supporters intended,” Mr. Tashkoff said.

    “Why do we have this legislation to begin with? It was sold to us as a way to stop kids being violently assaulted by their caregivers, but now we see that if anything, things have gotten worse. This is known as the law of unintended consequences; it’s what you get when you pass laws based on ideology. The supporters of the bill are now claiming that was never the intention, and that somehow the bill was just meant to make us all nicer people.

    “It’s rubbish of course, all that the bill does is move one notch closer to a situation where the people have no power and the state has it all. If a child refuses to go to school the whanau are not allowed to lift a finger to make them, yet a complete stranger working for the state is allowed to use whatever force is needed to do so. In the same way, you can’t smack a child that refuses to obey, but try not paying your taxes and just watch what extent the state can go to in order to force your obedience. This is an insult to the dignity of families and an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga. When as a country did we ever buy into the ridiculous notion that strangers care more about kids than their parents do?

    “And look at the effect on whanau. Sure its fine if you have the regulation 2.4 kids, or your kids are very young, but look at the larger families, which is where Maori are at, and see what’s going on. I’ve heard reports of kids running riot the length and breadth of the country. This law, which was meant to make things better, has simply loaded more stress onto families and has led to more, not less, conflict in the home. Supporters of the law have tried to pass off this effect as being as a result of ‘higher reporting by the police to CYFs’ but that’s simply a rationalisation to excuse an effect that doesn’t agree with their ideology. Parents in these homes know that after the law was passed children became more challenging and more undisciplined, and that conflict and stress levels in the home rose, not fell. The law has made things worse not better.

    “Irrespective of a small number of criminally minded people that carry out extreme violence whether to children or adults, there can be no question that the people that care most about kids are their own parents, not strangers paid by

    “That’s some of the reasons why the

    ACT party stands for the repeal of

    this anti-smacking legislation, and

    that’s why I do too,”

    said Mr Tashkoff

    ENDS

  • Heather Roy – Anti-Smacking Referendum

    Speech: Roy – Anti-Smacking Referendum

    Wednesday, 24 June 2009, 3:55 pm
    Speech: ACT New Zealand

    Anti-Smacking Referendum

    Hon Heather Roy, ACT Deputy Leader
    Hon Heather Roy – General Debate, Slot One; Parliament; Wednesday, June 24 2009.

    Violence is not acceptable in any shape or form. It is a plague that haunts our communities, and violence against the vulnerable – against our children – is totally abhorrent.

    I say that as a mother, and as a politician. That’s why we have laws that are explicit about violent behaviour and which impose punishments on those in our society who choose to inflict violence on others.

    The Anti-Smacking Bill – repeal of Section 59 – was promoted as the solution to the terrible abuse suffered by too many children. Details published around these cases – the Kahui twins, Lillybing, Nia Glassie and far too many other children – were so repugnant that I couldn’t read them.

    But the Anti-Smacking Bill is not the answer to stopping child abuse. The debate has relied on emotion rather than reason, and focussed on rules rather than results. The unintended result of the smacking ban has been to criminalise hundreds of thousands of good parents.

    Those who beat children to a pulp have never paid attention to the law and never will. The police have been told to use their discretion when complaints are made, but this makes a farce of the law. Laws must be clear, enforceable and regularly enforced to be effective. This is not the case we have now.

    What really surprised New Zealanders during the anti-smacking debate was the flip-flop of the National Party. They did a complete U-turn after opposing the Bill all the way through.

    It is only the ACT Party that believes that intrusion of the State into the homes of good parents is unacceptable.

    More than 300,000 people signed a petition to hold a referendum on the question: should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand.

    It is a question that has divided the country – not 50/50; not even 60/40. It has split the New Zealand Parliament from the rest of New Zealand. A Parliament that voted 113 to eight in support of the Anti-Smacking Bill, but which ignored polls showing public opinion was opposed to the Bill by a ratio of four to one.

    It is no wonder the people of New Zealand feel alienated – that the politicians are not listening. ACT supports this referendum; we support the people of New Zealand having a say; we support democracy. We do so because this Parliament has refused to listen to the people.

    Prime Minister John Key has dismissed the referendum as an irrelevance and that the result will not change his mind. I’d ask the Prime Minister to reflect on those statements and consider the anguish and confusion that the Anti-Smacking Bill has had around the country.

    Proponents of the law say it is working; that it is reducing child abuse – but 13 children have been killed since this law was passed 25 months ago. The long list of names we had before the Bill was passed continues to grow.

    This law targets the wrong people. The thugs and bullies, the child abusers, the real criminals – not good parents – will continue to assault and murder children. It won’t stop the James Whakarurus, Delcelia Witikas or Tamati Pokaias from being abused and killed.

    What it does do is frighten, confuse and prevent loving parents from parenting. The ACT Party is the only Party in this House that opposed the anti-smacking law; we were the only Party to publicly support the referendum to allow New Zealanders to have a say and we remain the only party committed to reforming the law to protect loving New Zealand families.

    ENDS

  • Real Issues – Referendum

    Real Issues – Referendum

    Friday, 26 June 2009, 9:24 am

    Real Issues No. 344 – Referendum

    Maxim Institute – Real Issues – No. 344 25 June 2009 http://www.maxim.org.nz

    REFERENDUM ANGST

    The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like ‘the law is working’ and ‘the question is weird.’ The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. ‘Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’ Committed to his brokered ‘compromise’ John Key can’t afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can’t afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent’s right to make disciplinary decisions. So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout. This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don’t care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it. Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum–from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone–it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy–especially when others are not.

    Enrol to vote http://www.elections.org.nz

  • Referendum

    CONFUSED?


    You soon will be

    For the past 72 hours, politicians and commentators have screemed that the Referendum question is confusing

    “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ”

    It seems pretty clear to us! The law currently says that a good parent raising great kids who uses a light smack for the purpose of correction is committing a criminal offence – subject to a possible complaint, possible investigation and temporary removal of kids by CYF, and possible investigation and in some cases prosecution by the police. (these have all happened – view cases HERE)

    But please take a quick moment to listen to this…

    Green MP Sue Bradford attempts to explain the effect of the anti-smacking law to an increasingly confused National Radio’s Sean Plunket this morning

    LISTEN

    Classic Confusion!!!
    Try and listen to the whole thing – and then ask yourself “so what am I legally allowed to do??” (An excellent written summary by Blogger Dave Crampton HERE )

    Doesn’t it seem incredible that our politicians are confused by the Referendum question – yet expect parents to understand the anti-smacking law, how it will be enforced, and its effect on how they should parent.

    This is why the referendum question is worded the way it is – because not even Sue Bradford knows the present answer.

    And that’s why we’ll continue to fight to have it fixed.

    Have a great weekend


    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • PM Won’t Hear Evidence He Wants On Smacking Law

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 June 2009

    PM Won’t Hear Evidence He Wants On Smacking Law

    Family First NZ is again asking the Prime Minister to meet with them to view cases of good parents being prosecuted under the anti-smacking law.

    “In Parliament today, John Key said ‘I have given New Zealand parents a commitment that if the law did not work, I would change it. I stand by that commitment. But I have seen no evidence to date that the law is not working.’ We have that evidence but so far the Prime Minister has refused to see it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “We have a number of cases that have been made available to us of parents being prosecuted under the new law. These have been independently examined by a senior police officer who believes that they show that the law is not working.”

    “A response received this week to our Official Information Act request shows that there have been nine prosecutions under the new law in the first 15 months since the law was passed. Many of these cases have resulted in the parent being discharged without conviction, sent to a parenting course, or receiving a suspended sentence. Other parents have been referred to CYF and had children removed while an investigation takes place. This is highly traumatic for any family.”

    “The Prime Minister cannot say that he has seen no evidence when he is not willing to view that evidence,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First is writing to the Prime Minister to again request a meeting to show the evidence.

    “Once he sees these examples, he can save $9m on a Referendum, move to amend the law to protect light smacking, and establish a Commission of Enquiry to tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Latest Smacking Poll – Same Result

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 June 2009

    Latest Smacking Poll – Same Result

    Family First NZ says the latest poll on smacking shows that the opposition to non-abusive smacking remains minimal and the law should be changed now rather than after a costly Referendum.

    “The Yahoo online poll has had over 16,000 votes and shows huge support for parents using a smack for the purpose of correction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This poll simply reflects every independent poll done both before the law was changed and after the law was changed.”

    The question asks “Is smacking an acceptable form of punishment for kids?”

    35% (5696 votes) responded ‘Yes, if they need a short, sharp shock’ and 52% (8451 votes)  said ‘Sometimes – if the situation demands it.”

    Only 11% (1870 votes) said ‘No, it’s never okay’, and 2% were undecided.

    Family First is calling on the government to  establish a Commission of Enquiry into tackling the real causes of child abuse.

    “We owe it to good parents to get this law right,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Let’s target the real causes of child abuse – not real parents.”

    AFTER LAW PASSED

    Curia Research Mar 08 83% want law changed to allow light smacking
    Research International     Feb 2008                       74%     parents should be able to smack

    Curia Research May 08                                    85% want law changed to allow light smacking

    TVNZ June 08                                                  85% NO – do you think anti-smacking law should stay

    NZ Herald Online Poll 25 June 2008 Should there be a referendum on the smacking legislation at this year’s election?

    Yes: 3746 (81%)  No: 878 (19%)   Total Votes: 4624

    Otago Daily Times 28 June 08 68% up to parents to decide

    (280 votes) 21% children should be legally protected

    11% depends on the case

    www.littlies.co.nz/ July 2008 One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective?
    Yes (7%)
    No (87%)
    Unsure (7%)

    NZ Herald Sep 08 Should smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ 86% No

    Online 90% (2800 votes)

    BEFORE LAW PASSED

    MARAE DigiPoll (1,000 Maori voters)               80%

    Anti-smackingvote.co.nz Apr 2007                  70% (43,000 votes!)

    http://www.antismackingvote.co.nz/poll+results Zenago Internet Solutions

    Treasures website Apr 2007                               85% (1972 votes)

    Waikato Times Apr 4 2007                                 87%

    TV3 TNS Mar 29 2007                                        69% (70% support smacking)  **

    TVNZ Colmar Brunton Mar 26 2007                   83%

    Research NZ Mar 26 2007                                  73%

    Bay of Plenty Times Text Poll Mar 26 2007 94.6%

    TV3 Website poll Mar 14 2007                           89%

    NZ News – Yahoo .com Mar 13 2007     92%    (7643 votes)

    TV3 News Poll Mar 2007                                   83%

    NZ Herald Feb 2007                                           90%      (3874 votes)

    TVNZ website Feb 2007                                   87%

    STUFF website July 2006                                  82%     (6700 votes!)

    TVNZ website July 2006                                    88%

    Bay of Plenty Times May 2006                          83%

    Child Abuse Conference Feb 2006                   82%

    STUFF website Feb 2006                                 84%

    Dominion Post Feb 2006                                   82%

    STUFF website March 2005                              86%

    NZ Herald July 2005                                          71%

    STUFF website June 2005                                82%

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Bradford Referendum Bill Should be Sent to Time Out

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 June 2009

    Bradford Referendum Bill Should be Sent to Time Out

    Family First NZ says that NZ’ers have no problem understanding the Referendum question, and the claims that it is misleading and ambiguous is simply an expression of frustration from the politicians who introduced the flawed law in the first place.

    “The squeals of horror coming from the politicians is not because of the question asked, but because of the answer that they come to – no!,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “The law currently states that a good parent raising great kids and who may use a smack on the bottom for the purpose of correction is to be treated under the law in the same way as a rotten parent who abuses their kids.”

    “This is complete nonsense, shows a disrespect for the already difficult role of parenting, and explains why the opposition to the anti-smacking law continues to remain at such high levels.”

    “NZ’ers are desparate for laws that target the real causes of child abuse – not laws that target real parents.”

    “Sue Bradford’s proposal to amend the law is simply chucking the toys out of the cot in a tantrum, and the proposal should be immediately sent to ‘time out’,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • PM Attempting to Shut Down Referendum Debate

    MEDIA RELEASE

    18 June 2009

    PM Attempting to Shut Down Referendum Debate

    Family First NZ is annoyed with comments by the Prime Minister John Key that he will ignore the results of the upcoming anti-smacking Referendum and will not be allowing Families Commissioner Christine Rankin to enter the debate.

    “The Referendum is an expensive exercise made necessary because of a failure by politicians to listen to the voters,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It is hypocritical of politicians to criticize the cost when their own actions have led to this public outcry.”

    “John Key is undermining the process by suggesting that, while he will ‘listen to the public’, any law change will be subject to what he thinks.”

    “It is especially ironic because while he was the leader of the Opposition he said

    The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure 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. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become.”


    Family First has provided the evidence he has set as the benchmark for changing the law – that is, evidence of good families being prosecuted in court under the anti-smacking law.

    “It is also completely unacceptable that he is attempting to shut down debate by preventing Christine Rankin from being part of the debate. It appears that the government has adopted an attitude of ‘agree with us or don’t speak’.”

    “This suggests that the new government is following down the road of the previous government – which ultimately led to its downfall – of ignoring the voice of NZ’ers and shutting down debate,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42