Click on the writing below:
Tag: Anti-smacking
-
CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM REPORT
CIR Update no.32 CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM REPORT
Only 55 days to referendum day! August 21.
Greetings, Another busy week as media continued to carry more news of the impending referendum.
Congratulations to Bob McCoskrie and team on a successful launch of the http://www.voteno.org.nz website. If you haven’t seen it yet I encourage you to take a good look. Lots of useful downloads and information. Simon Barnett has done a great job fronting it with a 90 sec video, and has been prepared to make his stand for the principles he believes in. Thanks Simon, Jody and family. We are proud of you!Also Muriel Newman’s NZCPR weekly newsletter was entitled “A smack in the face of democracy.” Muriel wrote a great article and invited me to be her guest commentator. Click on the link above if you haven’t received it direct. None of these events were co-ordinated or planned but the timing turned out to be great.
The controversy over Christine Rankin’s appointment to the Families Commission has helped keep media interest alive this week with stories about her being required by the PM to not actively campaign for a ‘NO’ vote. You may have heard Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor say on National Radio that there had been robust debate amongst commissioners previously about the Families Commissions official position on the anti-smacking law. Since in her own words she said the debate was robust, there is a clear indication that the seven previous commissioners were not all in support of the law change. Hear the interview here
Now with two new Commissioners that we believe would be opposed to the anti-smacking law, it would be very interesting indeed if the Families Commission had a fresh debate and vote concerning it’s official position of support for the law change.
You can hear my interview with Geoff Robinson here.
Perhaps if you were of a mind to write to the Chief Families Commissioner to urge them to re-open the discussion it would be a good way of supporting Christine Rankin.Last week we had several meetings with media and creative production teams to finalise plans for Radio and TV advertising campaigns for vote NO. Under the laws governing CIR anyone wanting advertise to promote one of the answers to the referendum question cannot spend more than $50,000. View Sec 42 of the CIR Act
It is fairly obvious already that the Yes vote coalition has been spending up large to spread their half-truths and misinformation. I will give you some examples of this next week.
We need your help to make our campaign to the finish line in this long battle to make sure ‘the voice of the people is not drowned out!’ We have raised approx one third of our budget so far. Can you help us raise the rest of the total of $50,000? Whether you can afford $10, $20, $50, $500 or much more, whatever the amount, it will be an investment for the future protection of families in New Zealand.
You can send your checks made out to CIR Referendum, P.O. Box 9228, Greerton, 3142 Tauranga or direct Internet banking to our solicitors, McKenzie Elvin Trust account
For CIR Referendum Trust 02 0432 0393 450-02
Or donate on line with credit card via our Kiwi Party website donation page DONATE
100% of all donations will be used for the advertising campaign. The ads will not be mentioning the Kiwi Party.Finally this week, a woman who writes under the pseudonym of Nonen Titi, has self published a book called ‘The Happiness Inquisition.” This fictional novel attempts to portray what the possible ramifications of the anti-smacking law will be in our communities and I found it a worthwhile read. You may find it useful to give to a friend to help explain why this law is bad and must go.
To view the book cover and make any orders click on her website link. The cost is $10 incl postage in NZ. http://www.nonentiti.com
Warm regards,
Larry Baldock -
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 ZealandAnti-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
-
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
-
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
-
Sue Reid: Smacking laws were never about the real issue of child abuse
This was in the NZ Herald .
It is a shame that we have a Families Commission that is driven by ideology rather than listening to families.
Chief commissioner Jan Pryor espouses her beliefs that “positive parenting should never include a smack” (Herald, April 3).
Her so-called justification for the anti-smacking laws are inflammatory and continue to vilify good parents who may use a smack as part of good parental correction.
As a mother of two young children, I resent the constant barrage that fully funded, power-packed organisations such as the Families Commission can constantly deliver from their lofty soap-boxes.
One can be left wondering who represents mums like me who are focused on the task of raising good, law-abiding and positive contributors to society. Like many other mums, I know that I wish to parent within a sensible legal framework and we owe it to good parents to get this law right.
The new flawed law has tried to link a smack on the bottom with child abuse of the worst kind and has put good parents in the same category as rotten parents who are a danger to their kids and to society.
Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change – the same rate as before the change. The smacking laws were never about addressing the real issue of child abuse but to undermine and criminalise good parents.
Contrary to Pryor’s comments, the new law did introduce a new criminal offence – smacks for the purpose of correction, no matter how light, are a crime.
Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for “minor acts of physical discipline” and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated – yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.
And there has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF’s notifications, but the cases warranting further investigation haven’t increased – in other words, valuable resources and time are taken away from the front line to deal with the real cases of abuse.
Family First NZ has plenty of evidence on its website of families being investigated and traumatised for complaints of light smacking, including parents who are referred to CYF by so-called helping agencies when they are simply seeking help, and of children ringing CYF to complain about their parents – imagine what that is like for a family.
Pryor asks families to seek help but in a culture of being labelled “lowest common denominator”, this will do nothing to support and foster good parenting.
She says “there is no legal justification for the use of force to correct a child’s behaviour”, so why does “positive parenting” not include correction? As a mother I need to be able to teach my child right from wrong and it is an ongoing process to “correct” my child’s behaviour – society expects me to fulfil this role.
We can all lament the daily cases in the media whereby individuals have not “corrected” their behaviour and have become a blight on society. Many parents would testify to aspects that are less than positive in the training of a child for the adult world.
I am sure the child does not see “time out” in a positive light nor see grounding as positive. Parents are often seen in negative light when they proceed with knowing best what will work for their child.
The role of parent is set apart from other relationships such as in the workplace or a sports team. Parents have the reserved responsibility to raise, train and shape the will and character of their child to maturity. Adults have already mastered that task – so the argument that Pryor puts forth about smacking another adult is null and void.
It is important to progress through to a referendum in July. This issue continues to be a strong, unresolved matter for most parents. After all, this was a citizens’ initiated referendum and the democratic process needs to complete its cycle by asking the voting public, “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?”
People who don’t like the question in the referendum simply don’t like the answer they come to.
Organisations such as the Families Commission would better serve families when they consider the attitudes, needs and requirements of families rather than using their government-funded weight to impose a flawed ideology on to good, healthy, functioning families.
* Sue Reid is a researcher and writer for Family First NZ.
-
Send a message that John Key simply can’t ignore
Send a message that John Key simply can’t ignore
Anti-Smacking Postal Referendum
July 31 – August 21 2009
In the first three weeks of August, NZ’ers will finally have a chance to have their say on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law.
Since the Referendum was formally announced, there has been a media EXPLOSION
* Campaign begins for referendum on child discipline – The Electoral Enrollment Centre begins a campaign on Monday to remind voters to check they are enrolled for a referendum on the anti-smacking law
* Vote unlikely to bring law change – The Government is unlikely to change the anti-smacking law regardless of the result of the $9 million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says
* MP’s slate smacking poll words – Because they don’t like the answer they come to, and the effect of the law they passed!
* Leaders won’t vote in smacking poll – Neither Prime Minister John Key nor Labour leader Phil Goff will vote in the smacking referendum
* Big two coy on smacking vote – A national referendum is re-igniting debate on the anti-smacking law two years on
* Latest smacking poll – same result – Family First Media Release 17 June 09
* PM attempting to shut down Referendum debate – Family First Media Release 16 June 09Now there is the chance to tell the politicians to change the anti-smacking law so that we have laws that acknowledge and value the important role of good parents – but also demand that the real causes of child abuse are targeted.
Family First will be one of the groups speaking up and encouraging NZ’ers to vote NO!
Our plan:
* web-based and media-based
* networking by email
* media interviews
* simply presenting the factsOur need?
Simple really. We need your financial support .The ‘opposition’ has no difficulty with funding .
Groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Parents Centre, Families Commission, Children’s Commissioner , and other government-funded organisations are well funded thanks to you – the taxpayer . And they’ve been busy running seminars, websites, sending out briefing sheets to MP’s, publishing newsletters, employing staff especially for this issue, and sending out social workers far and wide pushing their message.How do they really view kiwi parents?
If you oppose the anti-smacking law as so many NZ’ers do, you’re demonised as ‘violent’, and a parent who supports ‘bashing’ and ‘assaulting’ children. These groups should hang their head in shame for labelling kiwi parents in such a way.
* Former Children’s Commissioner Ian Hassell referred to opponents to the anti-smacking law as the ‘child-beating lobby ‘
LISTEN HERE * Sue Bradford referred to Family First as the pro-violence lobby
* Barnardos spokeswoman Deborah Morris-Travers said in a Christchurch Press article today “.. Our views of children are perhaps a bit more modern and up to date compared to the other side of the debate …..”* but the classic quote of the week also comes from Barnardos when Morris-Travers denied the 300,000+ who signed the petition – and the poll after poll after poll that shows 80%+ opposing the law – and makes this statement about Family First
LISTEN
(By the way, this letter is being sent to you by email and will be posted on our website after I talk to my wife on my mobile !!!!)WOULD YOU CONSIDER INVESTING IN OUR voteNO CAMPAIGN?
We will not get a single cent from the government in this Referendum – unlike the opposing argument.
Every donation – large and small – will enable us to get the facts out there, and to promote the important role of parents, the welfare of children, and the real issues of child abuse.
Thanks for your consideration. Together, we can bring some sanity to this debate and demand that the real causes of child abuse are confronted.
Kind regards
Bob McCoskrie
National DirectorAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 – 1797) -
‘Honest’ Report on Child Abuse Welcomed
MEDIA RELEASE
4 June 2009
‘Honest’ Report on Child Abuse Welcomed
REPORT LABELLED AS ‘POLITICALLY INCORRECT’
Family First NZ is welcoming a report from the Children’s Commissioner on child abuse released today, and says that it backs the call for a Royal Commission on child abuse.
“The report entitled ‘Death and serious injury from assault of children aged under 5 years in Aotearoa New Zealand: A review of international literature and recent findings’ makes an honest assessment of the real causes of child abuse and reinforces the findings of previous UNICEF and CYF reports that we have quoted,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“The anti-smacking law was a smoke screen for dealing with the real, and much harder to deal with, causes of child abuse. It has meant that ‘normal’ families have been targeted because they’re easier to deal with, rather than the dysfunctional non-compliant families who need support and possibly intervention. This report identifies those causes and is so honest that it could almost be labeled politically incorrect.”
Risk factors for child abuse in the report included:
· ethnicity (including the high rate of abuse amongst Maori)
· drug and alcohol abuse
· mental illness
· unsupported young mothers with little or no antenatal care
· presence of a non-biological parent
· family breakdown, severe conflict and ongoing domestic violence
· poverty, instability and unemployment
“The report also identifies that families are often brought to the attention of CYF and other agencies on repeat occasions and that this should sound ‘alarm bells’. It also calls for a multi-agency approach which Family First has consistently supported.”
“While it acknowledges that home visitation programmes may reduce the likelihood of future maltreatment, their effectiveness depends on the relationship between the worker and the family. Unfortunately we have created an ‘adversarial’ approach which immediately puts families under suspicion and therefore on the defensive.”
“It is also significant that some of the research quoted comes from countries which have smacking bans. Once again, it reiterates that smacking bans simply don’t affect child abuse rates,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“At last we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the causes of child abuse and our unacceptable child abuse death rate.
Report: http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/6345/OCC_Deathand_seriousinjury2009_040609.pdf
What we’ve been saying for 3 years: www.stoptheabuse.org.nz
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Cabinet Minister’s Smacking Law Comments Welcomed
MEDIA RELEASE
1 June 2009
Cabinet Minister’s Smacking Law Comments Welcomed
Family First NZ is welcoming comments made by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett in a radio interview over the weekend.
When a caller to the programme on Newstalk ZB asked the Minister whether she thought a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in NZ, the Minister responded ‘No I don’t, I believe that actually good parenting should be left to do that in their different ways in their different homes and I don’t have an interest in going into people’s homes and telling them how to parent’.
“This is a welcome change to the previous message that parents have received from politicians that ‘we know best how to raise your kids’,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Ms Bennett is also willing to acknowledge the difference between a smack as part of good parental correction, and child abuse. She went on to say ‘I’ve got the hat on of being hugely hugely concerned with serious abuse – now I think they’re very different things so do understand I’m not saying that section 59 was ever going to stop that…’. She also admitted that she would never have introduced an anti-smacking bill.”
Paula Bennett now joins Labour leader Phil Goff as having indicated that a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a crime in NZ, as the law currently stands. This is the question being asked in the upcoming Referendum on the anti-smacking law.
The Minister also acknowledged the level of daily concern from parents regarding the law and its impact on their parenting and the attitude of children.
“If the politicians believe that the law as it currently stands is wrong, they should save the country $10m on a Referendum and amend the law now,” says Mr McCoskrie. “They can simply adopt the private members bill put forward by ACT MP John Boscawen, and then heed the calls for a Royal Commission to target 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