God of nations! at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our Free Land.
Guard Pacific’s triple star,
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand
Men of ev’ry creed and race
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our Free Land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our State,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.
Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our Free Land.
Lord of battles in thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.
Let our love for Thee increase,
May Thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
God defend our Free Land.
From dishonour and from shame
Guard our country’s spotless name
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.
May our mountains ever be,
Freedom’s ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto Thee,
God defend our Free Land.
Guide her in the nations’ van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out Thy Glorious plan
God defend New Zealand
Search
Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga
“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
Press Release: Friday, 26 June 2009
That the House of Representatives urge the Ministry of Education to remove learning intentions for teaching gender diversity in the sexuality education guide and to remove the gender diversity teaching resources on the Te Kete Ipurangi website.
Petition reason
I believe that teachers are already required to create a safe environment for all students regardless of race, religion, language, disability, and sexuality. They do not have a separate requirement to teach the content of minority groups in the curriculum, therefore why should there be a new expectation to include the teaching of gender diversity. I believe that endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents.
NZ First Promised Anti-Smacking Law Referendum
Family First NZ says that if a referendum is going to be held on legalising dope as requested by the Green party, then NZ First should also be delivering a referendum on the anti-smacking law, based on statements made by leader Winston Peters and NZ First before the election.
In a speech in March in Northland, leader Winston Peters said; “We are going to repeal the anti-smacking law which doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children.” He then further clarified his position in an interview on Newstalk ZBsaying that this matter should go to a referendum with New Zealand people who are “far more reliable and trustworthy on these matters, rather than a bunch of temporarily empowered parliamentarians.” This position was backed up by senior MP Tracey Martin.
“NZ First is now in a position to be able to protect good parents and put the focus where it should be – on rotten parents and actual abuse. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
(In 2014, NZ First said “NZ First policy is to repeal the anti-smacking law passed by the last parliament despite overwhelming public opposition. Accordingly, we will not enter any coalition or confidence and supply agreement with a party that wishes to ignore the public’s clearly stated view in a referendum on that issue.”)
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
This morning, I appeared on TV3’s AM Show to comment on the research – and the law. You can watch the clip by clicking on the image below.
Conservative lobby group Family First has long campaigned for the right of parents to discipline their children using smacking. On Wednesday, spokesperson Bob McCoskrie told The AM Show the law is a “complete ass” and “parents are sick of politicians telling them how to raise their children“. This election year, he’s not the only one calling for change. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters wants another referendum on smacking….
This is just one of many family issues that will feature in our upcoming Election voting resource Value Your Vote.
Parents Smack Because It’s Effective & Not Abuse
Family First NZ says it is no surprise that the University of Auckland’s Growing up in New Zealand study has found that mothers – and parents in general – are still using smacking, and that research reveals that any forms of correction of children can be problematic, depending on the style of parenting.
A poll at the beginning of the year also found continued widespread rejection of the law and an admission that 2 out of 3 NZ’ers would flout the law if they believed it reasonable to correct the behaviour of their child.
“Despite having almost 10 years to prove the doubters wrong, the law has failed to convince anybody of its benefits or its effectiveness. In fact, the law has maintained its very high level of opposition, but most significantly, a high level of NZ’ers say they would flout the law despite the possible consequences. This proves the abject failure and rejection by ordinary NZ’ers of this highly controversial and flawed law. If it had any merit, it would have proved itself by now. Instead it has simply threatened and undermined good parents raising great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
An analysis of the law in 2014 by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer said that statements made by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children appear to be inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the cases they analysed.
“New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Mr McCoskrie.
In the independent poll of 846 people undertaken by Curia Market Research at the end of last year, only 23% of respondents believe a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence – similar to levels in a 2014 poll.
A report at the beginning of last year analysing the 2007 anti-smacking law, “Defying Human Nature: An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law”, found that there was not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of children that had shown significant or sustained improvement since the passing of the law, and that the law has negatively impacted law-abiding parents.
Family First NZ continues to call for the government to adopt the ‘Borrows amendment’ which allows non-abusive smacking and which the National party had previously lobbied and voted for.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
NZ First Correct To Revisit Smacking Law
Family First NZ is welcoming continued comments by NZ First that they will revisit the highly controversial and hugely unpopular anti-smacking law, but will be clarifying with the party as to whether they will accept the previous referendum on the issue or demand a new one, and whether it is a non-negotiable bottom line for any coalition agreement after the election.
“Despite having almost 10 years to prove the doubters wrong, the smacking law has failed to convince anybody of its benefits or its effectiveness. In fact, the law has maintained its very high level of opposition, but most significantly, a high level of NZ’ers say they would flout the law despite the possible consequences. This proves the abject failure and rejection by ordinary NZ’ers of this highly controversial and flawed law. If it had any merit, it would have proved itself by now. Instead it has simply threatened and undermined good parents raising great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
In March, leader Winston Peters said; “We are going to repeal the anti-smacking law which doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children.”
An analysis of the law in 2014 by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer said that statements made by politicians and Nigel Latta to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children appear to be inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the cases they analysed.
“Continued statements by the media and supporters of the law that there have only been a few convictions and only for hitting around the head are factually wrong, and also fail to acknowledge the investigations by CYF and the chilling effect it has had on parents and families. The police reporting also stopped way back in mid-2012.”
“A report at the beginning of last year analysing the 2007 anti-smacking law, “Defying Human Nature: An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law”, found that there was not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of children that had shown significant or sustained improvement since the passing of the law, and that the law has negatively impacted law-abiding parents,” says Mr McCoskrie.
Police statistics showed there had been a 136% increase in physical abuse, but also a 43% increase in sexual abuse, a 45% increase in neglect or ill-treatment of children, and 71 child abuse deaths since the law was passed in 2007.
“New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Mr McCoskrie.
A poll released in January found continued widespread rejection of the law and that two out of three NZ’ers would flout the law if they believed it reasonable to correct the behaviour of their child.
“NZ First are right to be revisiting the issue, and should repeal the law and adopt the “Borrows amendment” which decriminalises non-abusive smacking.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Almost a decade on from the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law, a poll has found continued widespread rejection of the law and an admission that 2 out of 3 NZ’ers would flout the law if they believed it reasonable to correct the behaviour of their child.
“Despite having almost 10 years to prove the doubters wrong, the law has failed to convince anybody of its benefits or its effectiveness. In fact, the law has maintained its very high level of opposition, but most significantly, a high level of NZ’ers say they would flout the law despite the possible consequences. This proves the abject failure and rejection by ordinary NZ’ers of this highly controversial and flawed law. If it had any merit, it would have proved itself by now. Instead it has simply threatened and undermined good parents raising great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“It’s time for the politicians to fix this law. One of the most significant things the new Prime Minister of the country Bill English could do is change the approach of his predecessor and respect the views of the NZ public and amend this law.”
In the independent poll of 846 people undertaken by Curia Market Research, only 23% of respondents believe a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence – similar to levels in a 2014 poll. 72% disagree with the current law (72% – 2014) and 5% were unsure / refused to say. Opposition to the law was highest in provincial and rural areas, amongst current parents of children under 18, and National and NZ First supporters.
In a further question, 65% of respondents say they would smack their child to correct their behaviour regardless of the anti-smacking law. 28% said they wouldn’t, and 7% were unsure or refused to say. NZ First supporters were most likely to flout the law.
“A report at the beginning of last year analysing the 2007 anti-smacking law, “Defying Human Nature: An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law”, found that there was not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of children that had shown significant or sustained improvement since the passing of the law, and that the law has negatively impacted law-abiding parents.
Police statistics show there has been a 136% increase in physical abuse, 43% increase in sexual abuse, 45% increase in neglect or ill-treatment of children, and 71 child abuse deaths since the law was passed in 2007. CYF have had more than 1 million notifications of abuse and there has been a 42% increase in physical abuse found by CYF since 2007. And health data reveals a 132% increase in children diagnosed with emotional and/or behavioural problems and a 71% increase in children hospitalised with mental and behavioural disorders since 2007.
An analysis of the law in 2014 by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer said that statements made by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children appear to be inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the cases they analysed.
“New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Mr McCoskrie.
Family First NZ continues to call for the government to adopt the ‘Borrows amendment’ which allows non-abusive smacking and which the National party had previously lobbied and voted for.
The nationwide poll was carried out during November and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%.
A Child Protective Services Whistle-blower explains what to do if CPS or CYPs comes after your family.
This was written with the States in mind but it is just as relevant for New Zealand and Australia
“Just one month after working for Child Protective Services, I began to learn that the agency was not in the business of helping stop child abuse. I went after parents who smoked pot, who homeschooled their kids, and let their children ride their bikes. In part because of this, I left the agency and began exposing the horrendous aspects of CPS and how parents can protect their children from the agency. What I will do in this article is to teach parents what to do if CPS comes after them.”
Read his advise here: http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/03/cps-whistle-blower-what-to-do-when-cps-knocks/
Media Release 17 November 2014
An independent legal analysis of court cases involving prosecutions for smacking since the anti-smacking law was passed has found that the anti-smacking law is complicated, difficult to apply, and lower courts are getting it wrong.
The analysis by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer also says that statements made by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children are inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the application of that section in practice.
<<READ THE FULL LEGAL ANALYSIS>>
The review of cases by prominent constitutional lawyer Mai Chen was obtained by Family First NZ which has been campaigning against the law and calling for amendments to protect good families and parents.
“With the amount of time and investment that Family First has invested in this issue over the past 7 years in order to protect good parents from a flawed law, we felt it was time to get a completely independent expert legal opinion of whether our concerns held any merit. Our concerns and efforts to get the law fixed have been completely justified,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
——————————————————————————————— “This (case) shows that although Mr DC had only “lightly” smacked his
sons on the odd occasion, he had nevertheless committed a crime
and was not protected by the new section 59….”
“Mr Young was therefore convicted for his actions in “lightly” smacking
his daughter….” Legal Analysis – Chen Palmer
———————————————————————————————
“It also flies in the face of assertions made by the Prime Minister John Key, the police, and the ‘Latta Review’ which argued that none of the cases highlighted by Family First to ‘bolster their argument that good parents were being made into criminals for smacking stood up to scrutiny’. The Review has again been proved to be worthless.”
Key statements in the Opinion also include:
An analysis of section 59 and the relevant case law shows that non-lawyers, including parents and the Police, struggle to understand and apply section 59. The cases also demonstrate that even lawyers and judges struggle to apply section 59 correctly, with examples of cases going to the District Court, the High Court and then being overturned by the Court of Appeal.”
Case law confirms that the section 59 amendment has criminalised the use of force by a parent against their child for the purposes of correction.”
Parents will struggle to know whether their actions constitute an offence under section 59 or not, and in cases of doubt, the police will prosecute and leave it up to the Court to determine. This is demonstrated in the cases we have analysed.”
The law is complicated and difficult to apply, such that even the lower courts are getting it wrong.”
Smacking a child for the purpose of correction is illegal regardless of whether the Police decide to prosecute or not.” – despite John Key telling parents that a light smack is ok.
Family First will now ask the government to honour their promise that if good parents were criminalised, they would change the law. Family First will also seek further legal advice on challenging the law.
———————————————————————————————- “The smacking law has been so bereft of success that supporters have
had to commandeer a claim that no-one has been prosecuted by it –
which has now been shown to be patently false.” Family First NZ
———————————————————————————————
“It is disappointing that the politicians have been so quick to mislead kiwi families,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“The smacking law has been so bereft of success that supporters have had to commandeer a claim that no-one has been prosecuted by it – which has now been shown to be patently false.” ENDS
————————————————————————————— Please consider supporting the work of Family First NZ. This legal Opinion has been obtained at significant cost to Family First NZ.
We will not be giving up on this issue while it continues to harm good parents raising great kids. Thank you for standing with us.
Family First NZ is labelling the Green’s ‘welcome package’ for newborns policy as wasteful and misdirected.
“This policy is taking ‘nanny state’ to a new level but indicates just how much the Greens want to intervene in family life,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“It is a complete waste of taxpayer money to give nappies, bibs and blankets to millionaire families and other families who are able to cope with those needs already.”
“It would make far greater sense to target those resources at young and low income families who are starting out as a family. Targeted assistance is far more appropriate. It is also disappointing that the Greens oppose income-splitting which would greatly help single income families,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“This policy is simply a stepping stone to having a social worker allocated to every child from day one – another level of ‘nanny state’.”
In Family First’s Value Your Vote resource, the Greens stated that Government, not parents, have primary responsibility for nurturing, raising and educating their children.
Family First NZ says that both the Greens and Labour are wanting to politicise and sexualise school children under the guise of bullying programmes rather than deal with the school bullying issue as it should be dealt with.
Labour has said that it will make it mandatory for schools to report bullying in order to support ‘glbti’ youth in schools. And the Greens have published a report on bullying based on a small number of schools with the focus being only on what ‘the schools are doing to create a safe environment for young queer people in New Zealand’, using confusing terms such as ‘gender diversity’ and ‘trans identities’.
“These polices are not inclusive, they are exclusive. They only focus on a very small group of students who are being politicised by politicians. Schools are being sexualised by the agenda of these politicians. This is not the best way to deal with bullying and mental health issues experienced by all school students,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“It is not surprising that schools had better things to do than respond to the Green party report. Schools are keen to deal with the bullying issue but they are taking a full school community approach.”
“It also ignores the far greater proportion of students who are bullied for the more common reasons of body image, racial background, disabilities, and academic success or failure.”
“In fact, the focus is flawed. A large Australian study has called for a focus on the bully rather than the person being bullied. This is a more appropriate and effective approach. Bullies themselves often needed help, dealing with the causes of their depressive, aggressive and anti-social behaviours. Bullying by children is considered a stepping stone for criminal behaviours, increasing the risk of police contact when they become adults by more than half. Children who bully also increase their risk of later depression by 30% and require greater support for behaviour change through targeted approaches.”
“Parental involvement is key, but Labour and the Greens seem keen to exclude parents from this process,” says Mr McCoskrie. “That should concern all families.”
“While some politicians are obsessed with so-called ‘homophobia’, schools and students want the focus to be on all students who are bullied, for whatever reason, and who deserve support and protection. Anti-bullying programs that work place the focus on zero tolerance for any reason, and target the bully.”
“It’s disappointing that the Green and Labour policies and ideology are clouding their judgment and ability to effectively deal with bullying in schools.”ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Stumble It!
Conservative lobby group Family First has long campaigned for the right of parents to discipline their children using smacking. 
“It’s time for the politicians to fix this law. One of the most significant things the new Prime Minister of the country Bill English could do is change the approach of his predecessor and respect the views of the NZ public and amend this law.”
An analysis of section 59 and the relevant case law shows that non-lawyers, including parents and the Police, struggle to understand and apply section 59. The cases also demonstrate that even lawyers and judges struggle to apply section 59 correctly, with examples of cases going to the District Court, the High Court and then being overturned by the Court of Appeal.”
