Family Integrity

Category: Referendum

  • Poll: Smacking shouldn’t be a crime

    Over 80% of New Zealanders believe a smack should not be a criminal offence and just 13% think it should.

    That’s according to a ONE News Colmar Brunton poll.

    The poll found 83% of New Zealanders think it is okay to smack children under certain circumstances.

    Those more likely to say it’s okay under any circumstances were older New Zealanders, over 55, and those living in non-urban areas.

    But one in seven say it’s not acceptable under any circumstances.

    And only a quarter believe the current law is working as it relates to smacking and child discipline.

    Meanwhile, over three quarters of New Zealanders believe the smacking referendum is not a good use of public money.

    The poll found 76% of people polled say the $9 million price tag is unjustified, while 20% say it is.

    The poll sampled 1000 voters and has a margin of error of 3.1%.

  • Smacking Poll: People v Politicians

    MEDIA RELEASE

    3 August 2009

    Smacking Poll: People v Politicians

    Family First NZ says that the latest poll on attitudes to the smacking law is a reminder that the smacking debate is essentially a battle between the huge majority of NZ’ers and the politicians.

    “The One News poll shows 83% opposition to the smacking law, consistent with every other poll done both before the law change and in the two years since,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of the Family First NZ.

    “But our elected representatives are adopting a ‘we know better than you’ attitude and are refusing to listen to the wishes of the NZ public. This is a disgraceful display of democracy, and shows incredible disrespect.”

    “The poll also shows that those who believe that the current law may be working at the moment (25%) still don’t support the law (only 13% voting yes). The government and the police can try to paint a rosy picture on the law but the bottom line is that NZ’ers simply don’t accept it.”

    Family First NZ agree with the 76% who say that the Referendum is not a good use of public money but has been necessitated because of ‘political deafness’ and a cynical postponing of the Referendum from being held at the General Election last year.

    “This whole debate around the anti-smacking law has come down to a battle between the common sense of families and the agenda of politicians and government funded groups,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Parents are doing their job 24/7 and the vast majority are doing a brilliant job. It’s time we listened to them on this issue.”

    “Let’s target the real causes of child abuse – not real parents.”

    Summary of polls for the past four years http://www.voteno.org.nz/polls.htm

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42


    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed!

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • YACA Interviews Marc Alexander

  • Yaca Interviews Rodney Hide

    Simeon Brown of Youth Against Child Abuse NZ (YACA) interviews ACT Party leader Rodney Hide. Visit YACA online at http://www.yaca.org.nz

  • Waikato people smack law down

    Waikato people smack law down

    By BRUCE HOLLOWAY – Waikato Times

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2709896/Waikato-people-smack-law-down

    Waikato residents have given overwhelming support to allowing parents to smack their children. Some 92 per cent of Waikato people who plan to vote in the current postal referendum voting papers went out yesterday are against smacking of children being a criminal offence, according to a telephone survey of 409 people in a Waikato Times-Versus telephone poll. The poll was run this week on Tuesday and Wednesday. The results are a continuation of the high popularity for sanctioning smacking that has registered in national and regional polls for the past four years. But the Government has already said it won't change the two-year-old law, which Prime Minister John Key thinks is working well. The Times poll showed 70 per cent of Waikato residents planned to vote in the referendum, with that rising as high at 78 per cent within Hamilton. Females (76 per cent) were also more likely to vote. Residents were asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Just 8 per cent said yes. The wording, while awkward, is exactly the same as for the postal referendum. That phrasing has been widely condemned for automatically assuming a smack is part of good parental correction, and requiring those supporting smacking to vote "no". But 60 per cent of Waikato survey respondents thought the question was clearly worded 35 per cent thought it wasn't. A citizen-initiated referendum is not binding. Whatever the result, Parliament is not required to implement the will of the people. The Waikato Times asked Hamilton West National MP Tim Macindoe an opponent of the so-called anti-smacking law what pressure he would bear on his government colleagues as a result of such overwhelming support. "The figures speak for themselves, and I maintain the view that the no vote ought to be respected," he said. "But beyond that, in caucus it is a collective decision, and there is no party line on this. We are not being whipped [controlled by party whips] on this issue." Ahead of speaking at the national Toughlove conference in Hamilton last night, Mr Macindoe said the poll gave a clear indication of public sentiment. "There is a strong body of opinion coming through and all politicians will look at it closely." Asked how he felt about his Government potentially ignoring the voice of the people, Mr Macindoe said the prime minister had always said if there was any evidence it wasn't working, the Government would move to change it. Mr Macindoe conceded there was little sign the legislation was not working. Legislation was amended two years ago to remove the defence of reasonable force for the use of disciplinary purposes on children. A review of police activity shows the amendment has had minimal impact, while agencies which deal with dysfunctional families say the law is useful. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.85 per cent.

  • A smack or time out for correction should not be a crime

    A smack or time out for correction should not be a crime

    Kiwi Party Press Release 28 July 2009

    The Referendum about the so called “anti-smacking” law (the name which Sue Bradford herself originally gave to her Bill) is really about how children should be corrected according to former MP & now President of the Kiwi Party Gordon Copeland.

    “Smacking and taking a child to time out are now criminal acts in New Zealand’ said Mr Copeland. “But only when they are used for the purpose of correction that is to rebuke,  in order to improve a child’s behaviour”.

    “At the heart of this debate therefore there are really two questions.
    Firstly do children need to be corrected?”

    “Most of us would answer this question with an emphatic “yes”. However  some would just as emphatically answer “no” because they believe that children are  born virtuous and will automatically, as if by instinct, grow up to become unselfish & loving adults!  I believe, with the wisdom of the ages, that  both children & and adults need to be corrected.”

    “Secondly should parents be permitted by law to smack or take their children to time out as part of good & loving parenting?”

    “I believe that the answer to this question is also yes. Note that, consistent with the Referendum question, the qualification is that we are here talking about these correction techniques used by good parents. I am not saying that hitting with a jug cord or locking a child in a dark room are acceptable correction techniques, because they are not! Those are the actions of bad parents who need to be corrected (there’s that word again) by the law of the land”.

    “Are we capable of making that distinction clear in law? Of course we are and we should. The training, education and correction of children, accompanied by large lashings of love & good fun, are the central tasks of parenting. Simply stated that is what good parents do!”

    “When it comes to correction parents should have the freedom, under the law, to use a variety of ways to achieve the outcome which they seek, namely an improvement in behaviour, in ways which are appropriate to the circumstances & age of the child. This includes appropriate verbal correction, smacking, timeout and as the child grows older, grounding & the loss of privileges. Parenting on a day by day basis is never one dimensional.”

    “I believe that these decisions must be made by parents and by parents alone! The State has no role to play and it is wrong for politicians to outlaw smacking and the use of time out in these circumstances. They have no mandate to do so. This matter was not widely raised in the 2005 Elections.  The issue made its way onto the floor of Parliament through a private Members Bill.”

    “The claim that smacking and time out should be criminalised to bring the correction of children into line with the correction of adults is a fallacy.”

    “We correct adults through fines, community service and prison sentences but none of these apply to children for the simple reason that they are children! The law always has & always will make that distinction.”

    “I’m delighted that there is to be a Referendum on this issue and the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” is crystal clear. Let’s use the opportunity to deliver a message to the Beehive which politicians will ignore at their peril because this issue really is for the sake of our children, our grandchildren & all generations to come.”

    Gordon Copeland is a former MP who left United Future to become an Independent because of his strong opposition to the criminalisation of smacking and time out for the purposes of correcting children.
    Contact:
    Phone 04 388 9805
    Cell 027 472 6998

  • CYF boss apologies after parents go public – not for wrongdoing, but because those his department hassled were “upset”.

    FROM Big News blog – read the comments on Big News as well:

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/07/cyf-boss-apologies-after-parents-go.html

    CYF boss apologies after parents go public – not for wrongdoing, but because those his department hassled were “upset”.

    A parent tells how he smacked his child

    “I grabbed hold of her ankle and smacked her bottom” Two of his fingers went above the line of her belt, leaving red marks on her back.The smack worked. She stopped kicking and was soon apologetic.But the mental health service was about to give her a full medical examination. Lisa told a nurse about the red marks and the smack.A few days later, at 3pm on a Friday, CYFS staff rang. They had received a claim of abuse and they wanted the children out of the house while they investigated.

    The question is, was CYFS right in doing that. How did it know the red marks were caused by a smack?

    It didn’t.

    The social worker described the situation at the time as “critical”. Family First has this case up on its website – [‘case 5] noting that the family were interviewed by the police for for five hours. The kids were removed, even though she was told that the marks were caused by the child falling on a vaccuum cleaner. On the Monday, CYFS spoke to the older daughter at school to find out how abusive her parents were and left her in tears. One wondered why they didn’t speak to her on the Friday before she was told to get alternative accomodation.

    But it took involvement from the media to get an apology from CYFS boses. CYFS boss Ray Smith said CYFS could have done a better job of talking through other options”. Like hell they could have. He didn’t say what those other options might entail.

    “I want to stress that removing children from a home is a last resort and that is not what happened in this case… I am sorry that the girls were upset and unsettled by our involvement with their family. I acknowledge that, in this case, we could have given [the parents] better advice on how to explain to their children what was happening.” He said the parents were “good parents”, but the agency had been “asked to get involved simply to see whether a family that appeared to be struggling needed our help”.

    What a load of crap. That is an outright lie. The parent said that the agency got involved not to offer help but to investigate the allegation of abuse and kick the children out as a first resort after a complaint, thus interfering with the lives of good Kiwi parents. Then he has the audacity to say in a column today that:

    This does not mean that CYFS is interfering in the lives of good Kiwi parents.

    But he has admitted CYFS did just that in the above case. The parents had no option but to accede to CYFS demands.

    Since when is CYFS there to “help” parents on how to “explain what was happening” when they don’t even listen to explanations as to what did happen?

    Go to big News to read the comments and to make a comment:

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/07/cyf-boss-apologies-after-parents-go.html

  • FAMILY FIRST – Campbell Live Debate

    In case you missed it….

    TV3’s Campbell Live tonight featured Bob McCoskrie – Family First, Anton Blank – from Te Kahui Mana Ririki; Sheryll Savill – the instigator of the referendum itself; and the chief executive of Barnados New Zealand Murray Edridge

    http://www.3news.co.nz/The-referendum-begins-should-you-vote-yes-or-no/tabid/367/articleID/114573/cat/41/Default.aspx (16’43”)

    You can also comment on TV3’s website here
     http://www.3news.co.nz/Online-debate—the-smacking-referendum/tabid/1153/articleID/114365/cat/980/Default.aspx

    Kind regards

    Family First Team

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

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Voters Not Confused by Referendum

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 July  2009

    Voters Not Confused by Referendum

    Family First NZ says that the record number of registered voters for the Referendum shows that there is no confusion about the Referendum question.

    “Sue Bradford has continued her attack on democracy and Referendums by insulting NZ’ers and saying they’ll vote yes when they mean no and vice versa. But it’s quite simple really – if you oppose the anti-smacking law, vote no – if you support the anti-smacking law, vote yes. What’s hard about that?” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Even government funded groups who have attacked the question still have been able to figure out how to vote!”

    “The attempts by politicians to attack the question and to threaten to disregard the result of the Referendum has actually had the opposite effect to what they possibly intended. It has rarked up voters because they feel like it’s more of the previous ‘we know better than you and we’re not listening’ attitude. NZ’ers hoped that we had moved on from that approach.”

    “Because of this message, it is even more important that voters return their voting forms and send a strong message to the politicians on this issue.”

    “The Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 was introduced by politicians to allow NZ’ers to have a say on important issues. The people have met the very high benchmark set to have their say. The politicians must listen,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42


  • U4L: Evil Destruction of a Family

    U4L: Evil Destruction of a Family

    Is this a glimpse into New Zealand’s future?

    I have received this link to a very disturbing article titled “Evil Destruction of a Family” from the UK.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html

    As you read this article, I would also like you to consider the parallel with a situation that did happen in NZ (no where near as serious as the UK experience, but very concerning), since the anti smacking law came into effect.

    # Child has mind polluted from a police visit at their local school, subject was the anti-smacking law.

    # Child wakes up next morning saying, I am not going to school and you can’t make me. \Mmother then asks where this came from. Answer: “police visit at school”

    # Mother goes to Police Station and makes inquiry, “Now that you have undermined my authority as a parent how are we going to reinstate it”. Police agree to a home visit to put things straight.

    # Remember, at no point has this mother broken any law.

    # Before visiting her home, Police spend several days investigating her record through different agencies. She has now been investigated for just an inquiry.

    # Police visit, attack her parenting skills reducing her to tears, and then reinforce their original message from the school visit.

    # Mother feels she has been mistreated and decides to inform her local MP.

    #  A short time later, a senior police officer phones her saying “You shouldn’t be going to your MP and stop wasting his time”.

    # Media not interested in story

    Regards
    Craig Hill
    021746113
    http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz

    Remember, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)