Family Integrity

Tag: ACT Party

  • Family First Welcomes Bill to Fix Smacking Law

    MEDIA RELEASE

    19 March 2009

    Family First Welcomes Bill to Fix Smacking Law

    Family First NZ is ‘stoked’ that ACT List MP John Boscawen has announced his intention to introduce a Private Members Bill to amend the anti-smacking law.

    “Our polling along with every other poll done over the past 3 years shows that approximately 80% of NZ’ers oppose this law – and for good reason,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “This flawed law has attempted to link a smack on the bottom with child abuse of the worst kind, and has put good parents raising law-abiding and responsible citizens in the same category as rotten parents who are a danger to their kids and to society in general.”

    “Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law was passed – the same rate as before the law was passed.”

    “Family First research has also shown that parents are hugely confused over the legal effect of the law. Parents have a right to know whether they are parenting within the law or not.”

    The 2007 UNICEF report on child wellbeing said “the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is associated with poverty, single-parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, weak family ties, and parental drug or alcohol abuse.”

    Family First is calling on National to adopt this bill as a government bill, to acknowledge the important and valued role of good parents, and to then target resources and effort at 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

  • Amendment To Fix Broken Anti-Smacking Law

    Amendment To Fix Broken Anti-Smacking Law

    Immediate Release: Thursday March 19, 2009

    ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.

    “My announcement coincides with yesterday’s release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered,” Mr Boscawen said.

    “This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders – 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.

    “While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.

    “The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.

    “In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children – something that ACT has consistently opposed.

    “The Labour we know best’ Government is out and National is now in.  Perhaps we will now begin to see an end to the madness of the past nine years – where politicians saw fit to tell New Zealanders how to live their lives,” Mr Boscawen said.

    ENDS

    Media Contact: Shelley Mackey, Press Secretary, 04 817 6634 / 021 242 785.

  • Voters Deliver Verdict on Anti-Smacking Law

    MEDIA RELEASE

    2 November 2008

    Voters Deliver Verdict on Anti-Smacking Law

    Family First NZ says that John Key and the National government should respond to the concerns of voters now rather than later, and amend the anti-smacking law to protect good parents.

    “The Labour government was punished and the Greens failed to achieve their potential because of the opposition and anger over the anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Even so-called left wing commentators like Chris Trotter acknowledge that Labour was punished by losing up to 100,000 potential voters because of ramming through the law, and many voters were wary of supporting either Labour or the Greens because of this and similar “nanny state” laws and regulations such as shower pressure and dictating what’s in school lunchboxes. Many Labour supporters simply stayed home because of their opposition to the anti-smacking law.”

    “National should acknowledge this and win the respect of the NZ voters by amending the law.. This would prevent good parents being investigated and persecuted for non-abusive correction.”

    “With the support of ACT, there are the numbers in parliament to deal with this issue effectively and efficiently.”

    “A costly Referendum is completely unnecessary. The voters have already spoken and it simply reinforces what countless polls and the two petitions, which gained over 600,000 signatures in total, have said.”

    “It’s time we targeted actual child abuse and left good parents the freedom to raise great kids,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Home discipline still a hot topic

    Home discipline still a hot topic

    4:00AM Saturday Oct 25, 2008
    By Carroll du Chateau

    The debate has yet to die down. Photo / BOP Times

    The debate has yet to die down. Photo / BOP Times

    The Smacking Debate

    In a year when the morals and ethics of our political parties seem at an all-time low, voters are focused on policies sidling into our sitting rooms.

    Many morally contentious issues are designated conscience votes by political parties, meaning their members do not have to vote along party lines.

    The anti-smacking bill proposed by Sue Bradford of the Greens and finally cobbled together by Helen Clark and John Key started out as a conscience issue and ended up as a party vote for Labour, National and the Greens, who voted 100 per cent in favour.

    Meanwhile, there was overwhelming opposition to the bill out in the community. Parents do not want the Government telling them how to parent. They say loss of discipline at home contributes to bad behaviour, out-of-control youngsters and, eventually, rising crime.

    Many say the Government is sending the wrong message to the young.

    “The idea that smacking should be against the law is ridiculous,” says Rodney Hide who, as leader of Act, stands for individual freedom and personal responsibility. “The fact that a small smack on the bottom should be up there with bashing kids with a pipe offends me.”

    Mr Hide’s position is echoed by Richard Lewis of the Family Party (a Christian offshoot of last election’s Destiny Party) and Bob McCroskie of Family First. While Mr McCroskie’s organisation is a pressure group rather than a political party, it has signed on as a Third Party and is spending a chunk of its allocated $120,000 to push family values – and undermine this legislation.

    Mr McCroskie says the law sends an underlying message that parents aren’t really in charge. “Kids are saying, ‘You can’t tell me what to do!’ We need to establish parenting within the law and parents don’t feel they’ve got it.” He talks about a consistent message (feeding through legislation) that we don’t rate parents.

    “We don’t recognise parenting as a career choice. The message is, ‘If you want to be a contributing member of society, get yourself a real job.”‘

    He is talking about paid parental leave, 20 hours’ free childcare and all the other measures designed to make it easy for mothers to go back to work.

    Mr Lewis insists the old legal defence in smacking cases “never protected anyone from child abuse. I think this bill exposes parents unfairly. There are reports of children turning up to school with innocent scrapes and bruises and being asked, ‘Did your parents do it?”‘

    Sue Bradford fervently disagrees. A mother of five, she insists she is a staunch defender of the family. “It’s the ability to beat your children that undermines the family.” She also defends the Parental Notification Bill, which allows teenagers under 16 to have abortions without their parents being aware of them. “My belief is that a woman’s body is her own.” ‘

    Less high-profile is the ethical issue around the refusal to pay parents and family caring for disabled children and adults, while professional carers qualify for funding. The practice was challenged in a tribunal hearing brought against the Ministry of Health by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings on grounds of discrimination against parents and families.

    While all parties except Labour express concern at the unfairness of the law, only the smaller parties are prepared to change it. United Future would introduce a caregivers’ allowance; the Maori Party would ensure disabled people and whanau could access support; the Progressives favour funding “as fiscal conditions permit”.

    Labour, meanwhile, is committed to steering away from the issue, instead pledging to provide $37 million on extra daycare and respite services, family caregiver support, extra funding for home-based support services plus wider criteria for the DPB so low-income couples and sole parents could receive extra support to care for sick or disabled children.

    One ethical area where the larger parties are taking a risk is with gangs. Gangs are seen as an integral part of our social fabric and stopping people gathering together breaches ethical boundaries. The proliferation of P has Labour and National talking about cracking down on gangs – again putting them out of step with Christian parties who claim the Government should focus on eliminating drug dealing rather than the gangs themselves.

    Another matter bothering Mr Hide is the issue of self-defence “Some things are worse than being charged: A, being a wimp and B, being dead.”

    * Since the law came in

    Sixteen months after the law change in May last year, eight parents have been prosecuted. One received diversion, one was discharged without conviction and six cases are yet to be resolved.

    This, says John Key, supports the view that the law is being well administered by police.

    A petition for a referendum on the legislation, which asked the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” gained 390,000 signatures, 310,000 of which were judged valid. To trigger a referendum, 10 per cent of registered voters (285,000) need to sign it. The referendum will be held next year.

    NOTE:

    From a link above:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10539387&gallery_id=102944

    National: Anti-smacking legislation to stay.

  • ACT campaign launch: We provide the spine

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4724654a28435.html

    ACT campaign launch: We provide the spine

    12 October 2008

    ACT has launched its election campaign with leader Rodney Hide saying only his party can put some backbone into a National-led government.

    Act’s launch at the Alexandra Park Raceway in Auckland started a day of launches which also sees Labour, National and United Future begin their official campaigns.

    Mr Hide told about 400 supporters Labour had squandered good economic times and had done little to deliver policies that would carry New Zealand through the current world economic crisis.

    National, on the other hand, was so busy trying to steal votes off Labour it had mimicked most of its policies.

    ACT was needed to force any change, he said.

    “This election I am asking you to ensure the next National government makes a difference.

    “It’s that simple. A party vote for ACT will ensure John Key makes a difference.”

    Mr Hide went on to spell out ACT’s core policies.

    Its economic prescription was exactly the kind of medicine New Zealand needed in the face of the global market crisis.

    “There are small businesses now going to the wall because they are being squeezed paying for an ever-fattening government.

    “Families are struggling to make ends meet with taxes, rates and other charges,” he said.

    “The way to facilitate the necessary transition is to cap government expenditure in real terms, free up the labour market and radically reform the Resource Management Act.”

    Other economic policies included immediately cutting the top tax rate and dumping the emissions trading scheme.

    Mr Hide also spelt out ACT’s tough anti-crime policies including the abolition of parole and a three-strikes policy, which would give a sentence of 25-years to life to anyone convicted three times of a violent offence.

    He said there should also be better legal protections for people who defended themselves or their property.

    He cited the case of Auckland dairy owner Virender Singh who has been charged over an altercation in which he defended himself from youths allegedly looking to rob his shop.

    ACT would also turn the clock back on “nanny state” initiatives supported by Labour such as the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs and Green MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation.

  • ACT will repeal the anti-smacking legislation

    FROM:

    http://clintheine.blogspot.com/2008/09/rodneys-pearls-of-wisdom.html

    On Kiwiblog today, there was a comment that ACT were only interested in “slogans not policy”… which of course I don’t agree is true. However Rodney (what other political party leader would be bothered to write a rebuttal??) got online and posted these words of wisdom:

    I am not an expert on law and order policy. I realise its the number one job of government to keep us safe and secure from the thugs and bullies — and to back us up when we defend ourselves. I have listened to the debates in Parliament and concluded the MPs and bureaucrats have no answers, just more of the same.

    That’s why I enlisted the help of Garth McVicar of Sensible Sentencing Trust and Peter Low from the Asian Anti-Crime Group. They have helped ACT a lot with policy.

    Roger Douglas has taught me that it is not enough simply to care. You need policies that will deliver results. And people who can deliver the policy.

    That’s why we have worked so hard on this one with so many different groups. Garth has been a great help. And it was a huge bonus to be able to attract David Garret to stand at list place number five. He’s the most impressive speaker on law and order I have heard.

    A key policy is the SST’s three strikes and your out. It’s been drafted by David Garrett. It will work. We have committed an extra billion a year to keeping our streets safe.

    And no, it doesn’t include smacking. Besides, ACT will repeal the anti-smacking legislation following the referendum.

    ACT has worked hard to have credible fiscal policy. We have done the same in education. I am especially proud of the work on law and order. I know of no other party that has done the work we have or who are offering a genuine alternative this election.

    It was especially heartening to have Garth McVicar and Peter Low speak at our law and order launch.

  • Anti-smack bill reform possible, says Key

    Anti-smack bill reform possible, says Key


    NZ Herald September 09, 2008

    The National Party will consider changing the anti-smacking laws if New Zealanders demand changes in a referendum, leader John Key says. The law was hot on the agenda at the NZ Forum on the Family in South Auckland yesterday, with Mr Key saying a strong referendum result should give a National government the confidence to change the legislation. Family First NZ hosted the event which gathered around 70 “pro-family groups” to listen to party leaders present their family-based policies.
    Act leader Rodney Hide said: “You don’t need a referendum to convince me that this legislation is wrong.
    United Future leader Peter Dunne said he would not change the existing law because of his belief in the worth of the child.
    The other key concerns raised were whether civil unions would be abolished and whether abortion law would remain the same under a new government. Mr Key, Mr Hide and Mr Dunne all said there would be no changes made to civil unions. Mr Dunne said United Future would review abortion law.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=144&objectid=10531208

  • Muriel Newman: Rich Country – Poor Families

    http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly25.htm

    1 April 06
    Rich Country – Poor Families

    In a sense, New Zealand is one of the richest countries on earth. We have a great climate, beautiful countryside, and a more leisurely pace of life. Our people are friendly, hard working and caring. We are close to each other in a way that comes from being a small country remote from the rest of the world.

    On top of that, we have a wealth of natural resources, we are great innovators and entrepreneurs, and we have established international recognition for our creativity and achievement in a multitude of fields of endeavour.

    So why is it that so many New Zealanders have a deep-seated sense of foreboding about the future? Sure, it could be the negative growth (no economic growth recorded in the second half of last year) or the rapidly falling dollar (the Minister of Finance sent officials to Japan last year to talk the dollar down). Maybe it’s the burgeoning balance of payments deficit (foreign debt grows as the dollar falls), or the rising price of petrol (adding in today’s 1c petrol tax increase, 91 octane is expected to rise to $1.62 a litre). But I suspect that the issues that are driving that sense of gloom are much more personal.

    At the heart of the problem appears to be a growing sense of despair about the state of the New Zealand family. As a country with a strong tradition of two-parent married families, many New Zealanders feel that Labour’s interference in family matters has been detrimental. In particular, law changes introduced as part of their social engineering agenda are manifesting themselves in negative ways.

    There is a new reticence for young people to commit themselves to marriage – why bother, when de-facto relationships have the same legal privilege as marriage? Yet common sense tells us that marriage signals a commitment for life, giving young women, in particular, the promise of stability and security they need in order to begin thinking about starting a family.

    There is also a new tendency for relationships to break up just before the three-year joint property claim thresh-hold is reached. Couples who are not quite sure whether things will work out between them, are not prepared to take the risk of staying together if it means signing over half of their assets.

    With the Domestic Purposes Benefit already incentivising the massive breakdown of the family, these more recent changes are making the situation worse by giving rise to more unstable, transient relationships. It is therefore little wonder we are seeing an escalation in child abuse and domestic violence as well as the fall-out from the breakdown of stable families – marginalized fathers, alienated children, and excluded grandparents.

    Just this week, New Zealand’s top Family Court judge said that violence in the home is blighting the country’s image as a good place to raise children. Yet I do not hear the Judge – or any of the other professionals who work in this field – calling for a change to the policies that are driving this social collapse.

    And, with Labour’s new family welfare package coming into effect today, resulting in 350,000 families receiving income support, we urgently need to review the wisdom of massive government interference in the family, before more lives are damaged or lost.

    A new publication released by the British think tank Civitas this week, examines the wisdom of state interference in the family from an international perspective. In her book Family Policy, Family Changes, Patricia Morgan compares the state of the family in Sweden, Italy and Britain, and concludes that families thrive in countries where there is less government interference.

    In Britain, where an anti-marriage agenda is being strongly promoted by the public service, universities and government funded social agencies, family problems are rife, with Britain topping the league tables in several of the most worrying indicators of breakdown, including divorce and teenage pregnancy. In Sweden, where a comprehensive social engineering programme has transferred many family responsibilities to the state – to a degree unseen outside of the Soviet bloc – thereare even higher rates of out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation than Britain.

    Italy, however, has effectively had no government intervention into the family, and is still the home of the traditional family unit. Divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, including teenage pregnancies, are extremely low. Cohabitation is so rare as to be difficult to measure. Young people live with their parents until they get married, and, for most women, marriage will represent their first living-together relationship.

    While government interference in the family is a cause of major concern, there are many other matters that are driving that feeling of despondency felt by many New Zealanders. In particular, there is an overbearing sense that things could be so much better, especially in those important areas that the government is responsible for.

    With 12,000 hospital beds and 12,000 hospital managers and administrators is the growth in New Zealand’s hospital waiting lists being caused by too much bureaucracy? Are we confident that our welfare system is working properly when we all know fit and healthy young men and women who are languishing on benefits? Would primary and secondary school education improve if vouchers were introduced in order to give parents the same choice that they currently have at pre-school and tertiary level?

    And why don’t we take a common sense approach to the small business sector – the engine room of our economy – by freeing them up from the mountains of unnecessary cost and red tape that inhibits their growth and productivity? Why not lower taxes across the board not only to boost the economy and create a competitive advantage for Kiwi businesses, but also to establish New Zealand as an attractive destination for international business?

    There is so much that can be done to solve those problems that are holding us back – as a nation that responds quickly to positive incentives, with good leadership and sensible ideas, we could really fly!

    The NZCPD guest comment this week comes from Sir Roger Douglas who outlined to the ACT Party conference last week, the importance of creating a vision for a better New Zealand (View >>>).

    Printer friendly version (PDF) View >>>

    This weeks poll. The poll this week asks do you think that the family related policies that Labour has introduced are good for the country? To take part in our online poll >>>

  • People Should Have A Say On Anti-Smacking Law

    Immediate Release: Tuesday, June 24 2008

    People Should Have A Say On Anti-Smacking Law

    Prime Minister Helen Clark is completely wrong to prevent New Zealanders from having a vote on Labour’s controversial anti-smacking legislation, ACT Leader Rodney Hide said today.

    “The anti-smacking law has clearly failed to stop child abuse – just as ACT said it would,” Mr Hide said.

    “All this legislation does is make criminals of good parents and tie police up with fruitless complaints. Meanwhile, the real child abuse continues on un-targeted and un-addressed.

    “Just because Labour and National voted to criminalise good parents who use a smack to discipline their children doesn’t mean that Kiwis shouldn’t have a say.

    “Labour’s anti-smacking legislation strikes at the very heart of how Kiwi parents raise their children, with both National and Labour saying they know best.

    “ACT doesn’t accept that they do – ACT backs parents, and we back Kiwis having a say about what they think the law should be,” Mr Hide said.

    ENDS

  • FI414-FAMILY FIRST – Please join our call

    26 June 2008 – Family Integrity #414 — FAMILY FIRST – Please join our call

    Dear Friends,
    Let me encourage you to please join this call to get some MPs to force the referendum to go though at the same time as the election in November.
    There are only 7 MPs to email. A sample letter of what to say and the email addresses are all reproduced below.
    Thanks a million.
    Regards,
    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity
    Ph: (06) 357-4399
    Fax: (06) 357-4389
    Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
    http://    www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

    Our Home….Our Castle
    25 Jun 2008

    Would you consider joining our call…

    Call for Majority of Parliament

    To Demand Election Day Referendum

    Family First Media Release 25 June 2008
    Family First NZ has written to the leaders of National, Act, NZ First, United Future and the two independent MP’s asking that they form a majority and require the anti-smacking Referendum to be held on Election Day.

    Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, a Referendum can be scheduled for polling day if the “House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.”

    “That is an ordinary 50% majority vote,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “ We are therefore calling on National, Act, NZ First, United Future and the two independent MP’s to acknowledge the voice of over 350,000 people and require that the Referendum be held at the most obvious and cost-efficient time of the upcoming election.”

    “ Any party that votes against this proposal should have the $10 million that it will cost to do a postal ballot charged against their election expenses ,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “If Sir Robert Muldoon could call a 1984 snap election just four weeks before polling day, and the-then National Government in 1999 take only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day, it proves that the Prime Minister’s claim that there is not enough time is a cynical and desparate attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet and undermine democracy.”

    If the Prime Minister goes ahead and forces the Governor-General to declare that it be held by postal voting, then the majority of Parliament can still require the voting period to close on the day of the general election – s22AB(6)(b)

    “This is second best as it is a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer money,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    JOIN OUR CALL

    Email
    john.key@parliament.govt.nz
    peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz
    rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
    winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz
    gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
    taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
    pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz

    View the Act: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0101/latest/DLM318489.html

    LETTER

    We are asking that you form a majority in the House and require the anti-smacking Referendum to be held on Election Day.

    Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, a Referendum can be scheduled for polling day if the “House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.”

    That is a simple 50% majority vote.

    We are asking you and your party to acknowledge the voice of over 350,000 people who have signed the petitions and require that the Referendum be held at the most obvious and cost-efficient time of the upcoming election.

    If the Prime Minister goes ahead and forces the Governor-General to declare that it be held by postal voting, then the majority of Parliament can still require the voting period to close on the day of the general election – s22AB(6)(b). This is second best as it is a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.

    If Sir Robert Muldoon could call a 1984 snap election just four weeks before polling day, and the Government in 1999 could take only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day, it proves that the Prime Minister’s claim that there is not enough time is an attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet and undermine democracy.

    The ability to get 390,000 signatures on a petition is a major feat in itself. Please help us uphold democracy in New Zealand.

    www.familyfirst.org.nz