Family Integrity

Tag: CYFs

  • Smacking Panel Must See the Real Evidence

    MEDIA RELEASE

    8 September 2009

    Smacking Panel Must See the Real Evidence

    Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of Nigel Latta to the s59 Review Process but is concerned by his comments that he will not be meeting with any lobby groups.

    “Nigel Latta has said ‘I did not agree with the original law change. I also voted no in the referendum. I do not believe that a parent smacking their child, in the ‘common sense’ understanding of what that means, should be subject to criminal prosecution or investigation’. That is a breath of fresh air, completely politically incorrect, and suggests that he will represent the concerns of NZ parents when he reviews the effect of the law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “However, we are hugely concerned that he ‘will not be meeting with, corresponding with, or entering into discussions with, any lobby groups’. Family First has been documenting substantive evidence of good families being investigated and prosecuted as a result of the law, and it is essential that Latta meet these families and view the evidence.”

    “If the Review committee is simply going to view reports of the police and CYF, which have attempted to mask the real effect of this law, then nothing will be achieved and we will be back to square one – a flawed law rejected by NZ’ers but marketed by government groups.”

    Family First is inviting Nigel Latta to meet parents negatively impacted by the anti-smacking law.

    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

  • Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny

    Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/2815488/Smacking-debate-proves-both-parties-want-to-play-nanny

    By MICHAEL LAWS – Sunday Star Times

    Last updated 09:47 30/08/2009

    OPINION: Is John Key thick? Or does the prime minister think that we are?

    These are the only two possible explanations, after a week in which the National Party leader exposed a hubris that has taken him only nine months to acquire. By contrast, Helen Clark took nine years.

    The pro-smacking referendum result of nine days ago was the most significant defeat of Wellington liberalism since McDonald’s ended the reign of “nouvelle cuisine”. And yet Key keeps finding new ways to forestall and frustrate democracy.

    His latest effort has been his unilateral declaration that National will not support Act MP John Boscawen’s private member’s bill that seeks to enact the public will on the smacking issue. Why? Because the law is working properly, replied the PM.

    Which is a nonsense. Because it is not working at all.

    Exhibit one: the 16 dead children – killed by their family/whanau since the passage of Sue Bradford’s anti- smacking bill. Those 16 children are a roll-call of shame and not one of them was saved by parliament’s good intentions.

    They will, inevitably, be joined by more child fatalities. From the same predominant ethnic group, and the same appalling underclass. Toxic whanau who will never reference their behaviour by what parliament says or does.

    Of the 16 kiddies killed since the passage of this hated legislation, 11 were of Maori background, two Asian, one of Arab extraction and two are unknown at the time of writing.

    And yet this was an act of parliament intended to arrest the onward march of child cruelty. It was supposed to “change the culture” – although change it by stopping the majority of good parents from lightly disciplining their children.

    Exhibit two: the law itself. And this is where the prime minister is not simply wrong but deliberately misleading the country.

    The law is explicit. Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) states that “nothing justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. And if anyone is in doubt on that – and Section 59 delineates occasions when parental force might be warranted in protecting a child – the above imperative trumps those exceptions.

    Indeed the law is so inadequately and poorly drafted that it now includes the Key/Clark amendment that the prime minister seems determined to protect.

    “To avoid doubt,” it states, “it is affirmed that the police have the discretion not to prosecute.”

    Frankly, this is no concession. Police always have that discretion. The section simply recognises existing police practice. That the police have created their own operating procedures with regard to Section 59 is accepted. But Child Youth and Family do not have that discretion. They simply applied the law as it was written. And who could blame them?

    The best solution then is to change the law; not to retain a section that categorically states that, if I smack my child on the bottom or hand for corrective reasons, I am guilty of assault. This was always the intent of the Bradford bill – and remains the intent of the “Yes” lobby.

    Little wonder that Key is being lauded by Bradford, Bagust, the Children’s Commission and the like. In fact, this in itself should cause the National caucus to pause. The anti- smacking zealots back the prime minister, the rest of the country does not.

    In fact, it must be doubly embarrassing for Key that the best argument against his supine sophistry was advanced by himself in originally opposing the Bradford bill. Why, he asked parliament in 2007, would you allow a law that you have no intention of applying? Why indeed, prime minister.

    Key attempted an answer last week by suggesting that he didn’t want to waste parliament’s time. Except private member’s bills are inherently not the prime minister’s to dismiss. They are the private bills of individual MPs and used to address outstanding moral issues or to remedy quirks of fate or law. In this case, both imperatives apply.

    And what could be more important to any ordinary family than parliament interfering with a parent’s right to correct their child? Such is, surely, as important as parliament gets? Especially when your party ran its “anti-nanny state” line so vigorously at the last election.

    Which leads one to the only possible conclusion. Key, secretly, thinks parents should be banned from lightly disciplining their children. Key is, we now discover, actually one the state’s nannies. A petty fascist.

    This means this is the end of the honeymoon. As the anti-smacking legislation came to define all that was wrong with Labour, so it has worked its revelatory magic with National. It has proven there is no real difference between the parties: that they both think they know best and the public is stupid.

    Tomorrow it will still be illegal to smack your child. The law states so. And it is also illegal for the prime minister to tell the police and CYF they can practically ignore this law. He simply does not have that authority as any number of public law precedents prove.

    Meanwhile, kiddies are being killed. The culture of violence that produces those deaths continues to spiral out of control. And we refuse to target those groups that we know are the most abusive and the most feral.

    No wonder US TV host David Letterman wants the prime minister on his late-night talk show. He could not have written a script so surreal.

  • Northland mother charged with daughter’s murder

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2817783/Northland-mother-charged-with-daughters-murder

    Northland mother charged with daughter’s murder

    By CLIO FRANCIS – Stuff.co.nz

    A Northland mother has been charged with the murder of her two-year-old daughter.

    The 32-year-old woman – who has name suppression – appeared before Judge Gittos at the Auckland District Court this morning.

    The murder charge was laid by police at Kaitaia District Court.

    The Kaitaia toddler was rushed to Starship Hospital earlier this month after she was found with serious injuries by family members.

    She died the next day in hospital.

    The woman stood crying throughout her brief appearance and was supported by a number of family members.

    Her lawyer, Belinda Sellars, said her client had been co-operating with the police investigation.

    After her last court appearance a family spokesman Maurice Waetford said the woman had “difficulty in her life… One good thing that I see that’s going to come out of this is that she’s going to get the specialist care that she needs.”

    The woman had suffered from post-natal depression in the past, Mr Waetford said. She had two other children. They were taken into CYF care following the toddler’s death.

    She was remanded in custody to appear at Kaitaia District Court on September 9.

  • Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand

    Larry Baldock

    Larry Baldock

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand,
    Parliament,
    Wellington

    26 August, 2009

    Dear Prime Minister,

    As you are aware I have led and organised the recent Citizens Initiated Referendum on the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act that has given all New Zealanders a chance to voice their strongly held views on a controversial subject. This was only possible because of the support given by a marvellous group of volunteers who gave their time and resources freely.

    An important part of that group, at least in the first months of the campaign, were many of your Caucus members who strongly opposed the Sue Bradford’s bill, and actively collected signatures for the petition to force the referendum.

    Given this common history in the referendum, and the very strong result, it would seem reasonable then that I may have been invited by you to discuss some proposals to address the widespread concerns of the majority of this country’s citizens.

    In contrast, I have learnt from news reports that, prior to the referendum results being announced you have been involved in discussions with those we discover now only represent just fewer than 12 percent of the Referendum vote, such as Sue Bradford and Deborah Morris-Travers. In fact it seems that advisors from the ‘Yes” vote coalition are literally crawling all over our ‘House of Representatives.’

    I shall therefore endeavour to communicate my concerns through this open letter and hope you may grant me an opportunity for personal dialogue as well.

    The final results show that 87.4 percent voted ‘No!’ This means more New Zealanders voted ‘No’ in this referendum than voted for the National party in the 2008 elections and that the turnout at 56 percent was higher than for the referendum on MMP in 1992.

    Your views about the rights of parents and your disapproval of the way the Helen Clark-led government ignored the majority opposition to the Bradford law are well known and documented. This makes your current position very difficult to understand and impossible to justify or defend.

    When you try to reassure concerned parents with your personal promises, it seems, from the outside at least, that you are falling prey to the attitude that your predecessor developed wherein she thought as Prime Minister her opinion mattered more than anyone else’s, and that it was within her power to take care of everyone.

    With all due respect John, you will not be Prime Minister forever. If you leave the Bradford law on our statutes any future government will be able to change the police and CYFS policy guidelines by executive decree, without reference to the democratically elected House of Representatives. This would render your short-term proposals aimed at giving comfort to the good parents of New Zealand null and void.

    Prime Minister, good parents do not want words of comfort they want legislative change!

    Your continued claims that the ‘law is working well’ are not enhancing anyone’s view of your comprehension of what the law was supposed to do, and what it is in fact accomplishing.

    As a parliamentarian you will know that the purpose of a bill is summed up in its ‘purpose clause’.
    It is impossible to properly evaluate whether or not the law as enacted is working well, except by reference to the purpose clause of the Bill itself.

    Sue Bradford’s purpose clause was “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction”.

    Here in clause 4 of her Bill we have the purpose and the means of achieving that purpose, defined very clearly, namely to reduce violence towards children (child abuse) by abolishing the use of parental force for correction!

    The continued abuse and sickening deaths of children since the Bill was passed is proof that it is not achieving that purpose. The awful abuse continues, and Sue Bradford herself readily admits, “My bill was never intended to solve this problem”. (National Radio Dec 2007)

    So not only is the law not working, but also that lofty goal has long since been abandoned by its sponsor!

    When you claim that no good parents are being criminalised I think you are referring to ‘prosecuted’.  The police records do indicate that the numbers of prosecutions are low at this point for smacking or minor acts of discipline offences, but the truth is that every parent that continues to use a smack for correction is automatically criminalised.

    After all, wouldn’t we consider a thief a criminal once they stole possessions that were not their own, regardless of whether they were caught by the police and prosecuted? After being found guilty in court their status would then be changed to that of a convicted criminal.

    The number of prosecutions by the police of good parents is therefore not evidence of whether the law is working or not.

    The law has an effect on every good parent in this country even if a single prosecution has not been laid.

    You may not have had to deal with the circumstances created when your child comes home from school to announce that they had been informed that they should report Mummy or Daddy to the teacher if they are smacked, but many have.

    Your proposal to solve this dilemma appears to be that parents should wilfully break the law of the country, while disciplining their children for breaking the rules within the family home! This forces many parents into the awful position of a hypocritical ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ type parenting which should not be recommended by anyone, least of all the Prime Minister.

    A useful test of the efficacy of the new law might be to determine how many more prosecutions the police are bringing before the courts against real child abusers. This is because supporters of the amendment to Sec 59 constantly claim that the police were hindered from prosecuting real child abusers because the previous Sec 59 defence of reasonable force meant they could easily be acquitted. They claimed that as a result the police were not even bothering to bring charges against these criminals.

    This of course was not supported by a proper study of case law over the past 15 years, or the police statistics.

    However, if this is the justification for the new law we should have seen a dramatic increase in the number of police prosecutions for crimes against our children, given that any use of force by parents for correction is now prohibited.

    Police records and statements by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope in the last police report on the new law saying that “its business as usual for the police” clearly confirms that the law is not working in that regard.

    There is only one way in which it could be claimed the law is working, (though I cannot believe that this is what you mean), and that it is that progress is being made towards the total abolition of the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

    While prosecutions at this stage are low, the latest police report confirms that the police have issued a considerable number of warnings. What is the purpose of those warning Prime Minister? Does not a warning imply that the police have informed the traumatised family members that have just been subject to an investigation that they should not use force for the purpose of correction again, or else prosecution would likely follow. Surely that must be the case.

    Because the purpose of the law is to ultimately stop parents from using any force for the purpose of correction!

    All your promises and words of comfort are meaningless since the police are to be independent in enforcing the law in New Zealand. We have had enough of the police asking the PM whether they should prosecute or not with ‘paintergate’ and the failure to prosecute Heather Simpson over the illegal spending of taxpayer money in the 2005 elections.

    New Zealanders are not stupid and they were not confused about the referendum question. They have understood from the very beginning what Sue Bradford and her supporter’s real intentions were. Surely you are not unaware of her motives, or have you now joined with her and the UN in their plan to run our country?
    That plan was made clear in the Green party’s first press release back in 2003 when they announced they had drafted an ‘anti-smacking law’ to “stop parents physically punishing their children in line with UN demands.”

    A recent survey confirmed a reduction in the number of parents using smacking for correction, which is not surprising given that it has been a criminal offence for the last two years. Unfortunately, such a decline has not resulted in a less violent society.

    I guess this does reveal though, that the law is indeed working, but is that what you and the National party were committed to? Have you really become so aligned with Sue Bradford and the 12 percent minority of the country who view all discipline as violence, that you are pleased with this outcome?

    If so, it must be said that your party has made a flip-flop in policy between May and June 2007, without consultation with your supporters, sufficient to make the 1984 Labour government look like angels of democracy!

    Given that a recent Colmar Brunton poll showed that 90 percent of National Party voters were going to vote ‘no,’ and that the result from your own electorate was about the same, surely there are many of your loyal voters who would be shocked at the change in your views on parenting?

    One of the things that made a positive impression on me, when I discussed with you how you would vote on the Prostitution Law Reform Act back in 2003, was that you said that when you were made aware of your electorates’ opposition to the proposed bill, you felt you were obligated to represent them and vote against the law.

    Surely you have not abandoned your principles in just a few short years?

    Prime Minister I have no personal interest in becoming your enemy, but I will speak up on behalf of 87.4 percent of Kiwis who voted ‘No’.

    Many of these people feel they have lost all hope of being heard by politicians in their own country. As my wife and I criss-crossed the country many times over the 18 months in which we collected signatures to force the referendum, we encountered a great deal of despair and distrust towards parliamentarians. Having been one myself, this saddened me a great deal.

    I know that most MPs generally work hard and try to do what they can to make New Zealand a better place.

    However, we both know that most Kiwis do not evaluate their MPs on the basis of their daily activities but on events like this, when there is a clear choice to be made between listening to the wishes of the people or following ones own ideas or political agenda.

    Given the current political landscape where both the Government and the ‘Queens Loyal Opposition’ MPs in this country are refusing to listen to the voice of the people and stand up for democracy, it is entirely possible that you may be able to disregard this referendum and survive politically for a few more years.

    I am absolutely convinced however, that you will do almost irreparable harm to our democracy, and strike a deep wound in the hearts of so many of your countrymen and countrywomen.

    I humble urge you to reconsider your current position,

    Yours sincerely

    Larry Baldock

  • More Window Dressing on a Rejected Law

    MEDIA RELEASE

    25 August 2009

    More Window Dressing on a Rejected Law

    Family First NZ says that the government has done more ‘compromise’ on a ‘compromise’ law but the window dressing is a cynical attempt to ignore the overwhelming majority of NZ’ers who reject the anti-smacking law.

    “The Police have already been doing regular reviews and they show good parents being prosecuted under the law – 14 at last count,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “But they also show a huge number of non-abusive parents being investigated – 94% of all investigations. Police may say business as usual, but families don’t see it that way.”

    “And CYF checking on themselves is completely unacceptable. A review by the Ministry of Social Development will be a one-sided bias affair endorsed by government-funded lobby groups like Barnardos who oppose smacking. That’s why we have been demanding an independent CYF Complaints Authority.”

    “The Prime Minister is showing incredible ill-will towards the 80%-plus of NZ’ers who have consistently opposed this law and want light smacking decriminalized. Cabinet Ministers received around 1,000 emails yesterday calling on the government to listen to families but they have ignored them.”

    John Key says “If the law shows … that New Zealand parents are being criminalised, or their children are being taken off them in some bizarre case for what could only be described as minor or inconsequential smacking, then the law has to be changed.”

    “We have already put this evidence before the Prime Minister including parents prosecuted for an open hand leg smack, arm smacks, bottom smacks, and even a ruffling of sheets to get out of bed. 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 bottom line is that you can put lipstick on a pig – but it’s still a pig,” says Mr McCoskrie

    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

  • The anti-smacking law: Only a law change is morally acceptable

    NZ Prime Minister John Key is saying that he takes the referendum outcome seriously, and that he wants to reassure parents that they will not be investigated or prosecuted just for smacking a child. See the story here.

    Police and Child Youth and Family officials will be warned to not prosecute parents for lightly smacking their children.

    Prime Minister John Key told the Sunday Star-Times in Sydney yesterday he was planning to introduce “increased safeguards” to prevent parents who gave their children “minor” or “inconsequential” smacks from being either investigated or prosecuted.

    The PM claims that he actually supports the view of those who voted no.

    Mr Key also told TVNZ’s Q&A programme this morning that he agreed with the result. “I agree and support their view there, I think it would be totally inappropriate for a New Zealand parent to be prosecuted for lightly smacking a child.

    Here’s the problem: Their (our) view is that a smack as part of good aprental correction should not be a criminal offence. Unless the law is changed, it will continue to be a criminal offence. To say that it will remain a criminal offence, but police will be advised not to prosecute these criminals, is not to share our view at all.

    Criminals should be prosecuted. If a reasonable smack (not a punch, a whipping, a “good hiding,” etc) as part of normal correction should never be prosecuted, then it should not be a crime in law, which it currently is.

    Stop being half hearted, Mr Key. If you share our view, as you claim to, that a smack should not be a crime, then seek a law change so that a smack is not a crime. It’s not complicated. We’re waiting.

    Leave comments here

    Write to John Key and the Cabinet

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/the-message-is-clear-decriminalise-light-smacking/

    and

    http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/referendumsection-59-the-way-forward/

  • The Message is Clear…Decriminalise Light Smacking

    The Message is Clear…


    Decriminalise


    Light Smacking


    WOULD YOU CONSIDER TAKING 2 MINUTES TO SEND AN IMPORTANT EMAIL?

    Tomorrow morning, and in response to the whopping 88% who voted NO in the Referendum, John Key will be going to Cabinet to recommend ‘increased safeguards’, guidelines and ‘a level of comfort’ for parents under the anti-smacking law. But the Referendum wasn’t about ‘recommendations’, ‘guidelines’ or ‘comfort’ – it was about a law change .

    As the law stands, a light smack is a criminal offence subject to whether the police agree it was ‘inconsequential’ and then whether CYF agree that you’re not an abusive parent (only after an investigation that may require your children to be removed temporarily). We’ve documented many cases where this interpretation would be completely different to what you and I would think ( see here).

    PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO EMAIL THE MEMBERS OF CABINET

    Almost all of these Ministers were in Opposition when the law was passed and actively lobbyed against the law change until they were ‘whipped’ to support the compromise – some even helped collect signatures and promoted the need for a Referendum! It’s not about John Key’s view – it’s about Cabinet listening to the almost 90% who voted NO in the Referendum

    Here’s the emails…
    john.key@parliament.govt.nz ; bill.english@parliament.govt.nz ; gerry.brownlee@parliament.govt.nz ; simon.power@parliament.govt.nz ; tony.ryall@parliament.govt.nz ; nick.smith@parliament.govt.nz ; judith.collins@parliament.govt.nz ; anne.tolley@parliament.govt.nz ; christopher.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz ; david.carter@parliament.govt.nz ; murray.mccully@parliament.govt.nz ; tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz ; wayne.mapp@parliament.govt.nz ; steven.joyce@parliament.govt.nz ; georgina.teheuheu@parliament.govt.nz ; paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz ; phil.heatley@parliament.govt.nz ; pansy.wong@parliament.govt.nz ; jonathan.coleman@parliament.govt.nz ; kate.wilkinson@parliament.govt.nz ;  mail@hef.org.nz; admin@familyfirst.org.nz
    (we’ve added our email address simply so we can monitor how much email traffic each Cabinet Minister is receiving)

    Step 1 : Simply highlight all emails, copy and paste in a new email.

    Step 2 : Write a simply message which starts with something like
    “Decriminalise Light Smacking – Please hear the voice of the 88% who voted against the anti-smacking law….” And then, if you want, add any additional comments – but at all times, PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL!

    Use this as a guide:

    (Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/_)

    Step 3: Press SEND!

    Thank you. Your voice really does count.

    Kind regards

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Write to John Key NOW

    Key signals protection for parents

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2778529/Key-signals-protection-for-parents

    By GRAHAME ARMSTRONG, COLIN ESPINER – Sunday Star Times

    Police and Child Youth and Family officials will be warned to not prosecute parents for lightly smacking their children. Prime Minister John Key told the Sunday Star-Times in Sydney yesterday he was planning to introduce "increased safeguards" to prevent parents who gave their children "minor" or "inconsequential" smacks from being either investigated or prosecuted. Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/ Key's move is designed to appease the "Vote No" campaigners, who were yesterday celebrating an overwhelming win in the citizens-initiated referendum asking: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Of the more than 1.6 million New Zealanders who voted (a 54 percent turnout), 88 percent said smacking children should not be a criminal offence. The "Yes" campaign attracted 12 percent of the vote. "What I am wanting to ensure," Key said, "is that parents have a level of comfort that the police and Child Youth and Family follow the intent of parliament, and that they can feel comfortable that in bringing up their children they are not going to be dragged before the courts for a minor or inconsequential smack." Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/ Key said that although police had statutory independence from the government, cabinet had some options to direct them, which would be outlined tomorrow. Given the referendum results, campaigners are baying for the law to be changed back or at least amended, allowing parents to use an open hand to smack their children on the bottom or hand. Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/ Key got himself into an awkward political position on the issue after cutting a deal in 2007 with then Prime Minister Helen Clark to ban the use of force as a "corrective" measure. He has repeatedly said he does not believe police are prosecuting parents unnecessarily and that he remained comfortable the law was working. Four police reports had said the law change in 2007 has had "minimal impact on police activity" and another was due for release early this week. Key said that report would also show a similar result. Sending the issue back to parliament would consume the country at a time when there were bigger issues to deal with, he said. Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/ Family First, which led the "Vote No" campaign, said the result was clear-cut and justified changing the law "so that good parents are not treated as breaking the law for light smacking". It also wants the government to establish a Royal Commission into child abuse to identify and target the real causes. "The 87.6% of New Zealanders who voted no are not people who are demanding the right to assault and beat children," says Bob McCoskrie, national director of Family First. "They are simply Kiwis who want to tackle the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, violence in our media, poverty and stress, and weak family ties."
    McCoskrie also urged the Families Commission to represent the voice of families, not politicians, and call for the anti-smacking law to be amended. Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/ Although McCoskrie personally thinks it is OK for a parent to use a wooden spoon to discipline their children, he believes it would be clearer if it was written into the law that it was all right to use an open hand to smack a child on the bottom and the hands. "I've always thought it would be better to give parents certainty and just say use your hand, and then you know exactly what the force is. At the same time, I hear mums say they prefer the wooden spoon and sometimes that has the same effect as an open-hand smack. I do have a problem with belts... we should stay right clear of that level just to avoid any doubt." McCoskrie said the "Vote No" camp spent $49,100 on its campaign, within the legal $50,000 cap for a referendum. Write to John Key now: https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/family-integrity-473-write/

  • Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2773068/Anti-smacking-side-concede-loss-likely

    Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    By MICHAEL FOX – Stuff.co.nz

    Larry Baldock

    HOT ISSUE: Larry Baldock with boxes of petitions in 2008. The petition, circulated nationwide, led to the referendum.

    Campaigners on both sides of the smacking debate believe a referendum result due out tonight will be a victory for those who opposed a controversial 2007 law change.

    We will bring you results of the referendum as soon as they are available this evening.

    Preliminary results from the controversial $9 million citizens-initiated poll are due at 8.30pm this evening  although they are not binding, and the government has not signalled any intention to act on the result.

    Those behind the referendum, which asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” believe the majority of respondents will have voted no. As of last Friday, 1,330,900 votes had been cast.

    “I’ve been working on this for 32 months and to get the final result it will be great,” Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock, who initiated the referendum, said.

    “I think it will definitely be a majority no vote.”

    The referendum follows a controversial law change in 2007 led by Green Party MP Sue Bradford which repealed Section 59 in the Crimes Act, a clause which made it legal for parents to use reasonable force to discipline a child.

    The law change made it illegal for parents to use force against their children but affords police discretionary powers not to prosecute where the offence is considered inconsequential.

    Mr Baldock said the 2007 Act should be repealed, and is so confident the majority of Kiwis feels the same that he has already organised a party at an Auckland motel for supporters, where they will gather to await the result.

    Vote Yes spokeswoman and former NZ First MP Deborah Morris-Travers said the group that opposes smacking did not expect the vote to go their way.

    “We’ve always expected that the majority vote would be a No vote because, of course, thats how the question is put. It’s a loaded question.”

    However, she said the campaign had allowed them to (miss-educate)  educate people about the law and address (spread) some of the misinformation that surrounded it.

    She pointed to the latest police statistics which, she said, proved concerns in the community that large numbers of parents would be criminalised for smacking were unfounded.

    (No any good family that comes before the Police and CYFs is unnecessary and traumatic for the family)

    The figures from the latest six-month review showed police attended 279 child assault events in the six-month review period between last October and April.

    Of those events, 39 involved “minor acts of physical discipline”, with four resulting in prosecutions. Eight of those involved smacking.

    During the previous review period, police attended 258 child assault events of which 49 were “minor acts of physical discipline” and nine involved smacking.

    Police said there had been little impact on their workloads since the law was enacted.

    “It’s hardly thousands and thousands of parents are being criminalised because they are absolutely not,” Ms Morris-Travers said

    (One good family criminalised is too many – especially if it is your family)

    She said she had detected a sea change in people’s attitudes and New Zealanders needed to give the law a chance.

    “They can have confidence in [the law] and they can have confidence in the way the police are administering the law,” she said.

    The No campaigners would be making recommendations on how the law should be changed and hoped Prime Minister John Key would act quickly, Mr Baldock said.

    Mr Baldock said little had been gained from the legislation so far.

    “If you look at all the time and money and, you know, angst thats been expended on this for the past three or four years and for what gain?” he said.

    However, both Mr Key and opposition leader Phil Goff have said they are comfortable with the legislation as it stands and a No vote would not change that.

  • Smacking question is clear enough

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/70140/smacking-question-clear-enough?page=0%2C0

    Smacking question is clear enough

    Tue, 18 Aug 2009

    Rex Ahdar takes issue with the idea that the “smacking” referendum is ambiguous and confusing.

    Unless you have been living in the Fiordland bush for the last few years, or have just arrived from Latvia, you would readily understand the fateful sentence in its cultural context

    People should exercise their democratic rights and vote in the smacking referendum.

    I believe the objections to it are misplaced.

    Some cry, what about the expense? Could not the money have been spent on tackling child abuse? Yes, but the promoters of the referendum are not to blame.

    The government was asked to run the referendum in conjunction with the general election, but it said no.

    The referendum question might have proved an unpalatable, additional reason for voters not to give Labour and the Greens another term.

    It is thus disingenuous for the politicians to cry waste when they had a straightforward opportunity to avoid it.

    Besides, $9 million is not a huge amount when considering an important parental practice and, as the abolitionists of smacking remind us, the welfare of children.

    If we can spend $80 million per year on possum eradication, we can afford a fraction of this on such an important matter of family governance.

    Next, the wording is said to be ambiguous and confusing.

    Really? Read in isolation I suppose one could quibble with its meaning.

    But unless you have been living in the Fiordland bush for the last few years, or have just arrived from Latvia, you would readily understand the fateful sentence in its cultural context.

    The referendum wording is read against the background of the ongoing public controversy over the merits of a law to permit mild corporal punishment of children by their parents.

    The real gripe is not so much that the wording is ambiguous, but that it is slanted.

    Perhaps.

    To me, the offending phrase simply sets the context in which a smack occurs.

    On the other hand, critics contend that smacking and good parental correction are cunningly linked, implying that the two are part and parcel of the same thing.

    Critics refuse to see how a smack can ever be part of good parental correction.

    But again, the proponents of the referendum are not at fault.

    As the Californian experience of referendums shows, the promoters always try to word the thing in a way that favours their desired result.

    Having invested a huge amount of energy to secure the minimum 10% of voters necessary to trigger a referendum, who can blame them? But the real culprit, if any, is the Clerk of the House.

    The clerk is the independent statutory official responsible for vetting the wording and ensuring, in the words of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, the question put to voters conveys clearly the referendum’s purpose and is capable only of one of two answers.

    The so-called poor wording is the fault of former clerk David McGee QC.

    Next, is the current version of section 59 of the Crimes Act working satisfactorily? Have parents who engaged in a light, non-injurious corporal correction (a smack) been prosecuted? The answer, according to Family First’s investigations, is yes.

    And those who have not been prosecuted have still undergone the stress of a police investigation, and probably scrutiny by Child, Youth and Family personnel, too.

    Why the prime minister maintains the present law is working well (and thus no action is needed) is puzzling.

    Looking back, the whole rationale for the law change was suspect, if not illusory.

    Abolitionists, led by Sue Bradford MP, continually raised the spectre of the abuser who sheltered behind the section 59 defence and was thereby acquitted of blatant thuggery by a feeble jury.

    The celebrated and deliberately vague examples usually cite the father who beat his son with a hunk of wood and the mother who viciously used a horsewhip on her son.

    A closer inspection of the facts reveals another story.

    The Havelock North father hastily used a thin piece of kindling (a foot long and 2cm thick) on his 8-year-old son’s backside following an admitted incident of stealing by the boy.

    This is hardly the ominous piece of four-by-two that is typically asserted.

    The Timaru mother did use an 18-inch long and half-inch thick riding crop, but in urgent response to her 12-year-old son’s attempt to hit his stepfather on the head with a softball bat.

    On both occasions, the juries decided that the parents’ response was reasonable in all the circumstances.

    At best, this repetition of the-abuser-was-acquitted tales is sloppy.

    At worst, it is calculated and deliberate misrepresentation.

    The smacking defence-justified-abuse gambit is really just a specious ploy to undermine a law that was working satisfactorily.

    It is sleight of hand designed to divert attention away from the abolitionist’s real objection, which is philosophical from start to finish.

    The previous law did not permit physical abuse by parents to go unpunished.

    The social science evidence on the effects of smacking on children does not show that it is harmful.

    The Otago University Children’s Issues Centres 2004 report said: “While it is clear from the research that severe and harsh punishment [both physical or other] is potentially very risky for children’s development, occasional physical punishment occurs in many families and may not have long-term negative effects as long as it is used in a climate of warmth and love, where the predominant mode of relating to children is positive.

    “To say that smacking is associated with children’s aggression, under-achievement, depression is mischievous.

    “The observation that two things are associated [or correlated] does not mean there is a causal connection between them.”

    Faced with these inconvenient facts, opponents of smacking are relegated to asserting their personal convictions.

    I have no doubt that abolitionists sincerely believe that corporal punishment of children is morally wrong.

    They are entitled to their view.

    If their liberal sensibilities are offended, let them exercise their own parental prerogatives by adopting other modes of discipline on their children.

    I will let them grapple with the question of whether time out (false imprisonment, if an adult was the one being confined), removal of pocket money (deprivation of property) and so on raise no ethical concerns.

    Let me, along with the other 83% of New Zealanders who do not share their moral sentiments, choose the form of discipline that we consider is sound. – Rex Ahdar