Family Integrity

Tag: Politics

  • Call for Urgent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

    MEDIA RELEASE
    12 August 2009
    Call for Urgent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse
    Family First NZ is repeating its call for an official inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ. The call comes after the death of a 2-year old child in Kaitaia, the investigation into the critical injuries suffered by a Whangarei toddler, and an admission by police of “unacceptable” delays and insufficient investigation into child abuse cases – especially in the Wairarapa.
    “The 80% plus of NZ’ers who oppose the anti-smacking law are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children,” says Bob McCoskrie of Family First. “They are simply kiwis who are exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed family welfare groups are more interested in targeting good parents than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty and stress, and weak family ties.”
    “The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues.
    It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions.”
    “Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with 14 deaths since the law was passed,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”
    “An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    HALL OF SHAME
    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007
    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007
    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007
    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007
    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa
    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu
    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury
    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008
    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008
    10. 16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008
    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009
    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009
    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009
    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09
    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Phil Jackson: Parents, not governments, are responsible for children

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588462&pnum=0

    Phil Jackson: Parents, not governments, are responsible for children

    4:00AM Tuesday Aug 04, 2009

    It is an extreme rarity for a politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today

    It is an extreme rarity for a Politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case. Photo / Hawke’s Bay Today

    Your Views Have you changed your habits since the smacking law? Tell us your stories

    Parliament tends to attract those that are unable to ferret out the principles of important issues. The Electoral Finance Bill and the Microchipping Bill are two good examples of bits of subjective legislation that should have stayed submerged.

    Members of Parliament know that they can get away with many things because they have denied the public the means to direct them on issues important to them. The Privy Council as the last means of appeal was abolished by a government that wanted its legislation to be interpreted in a particular way and despite the overwhelming number of submissions against this, decided that is what it wanted anyway.

    The referendum on smacking has come about because ordinary New Zealanders and many decent mums and dads have felt that the law change was wrong. Support for the original law has hovered around 80 per cent and it comes as no surprise to the cynical amongst us that Prime Minister John Key is not interested in changing the new law.

    A disrespect for democracy is a hallmark of many politicians. Although they depend on it to get power, once it has been gained they flaunt it with impunity.

    It is an extreme rarity for a politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case.

    This law change was sold on the pretext that it would stop the senseless murder and physical abuse of infants. Only a fool would expect a law to be able to stop everyone committing such acts.

    Sentences of prison do not stop murders nor will they, nor have they stopped the young and helpless dying from the acts of others.

    The law now states that parents cannot use physical discipline for correction. If this is a good principle, then it should also apply to adults and that time out should also not be used for correction for children.

    The penalty for a breach of this law is intended to correct the attitude. It is not a good principle but a bad ideal.

    My two boys can be quite hard to manage sometimes and the rare times I’ve had to administer some physical correction, I have seen them want to become closer to me after their boundaries had become re-established.

    Those that argue that smacking is violence show a simplistic grasp of the subject. Society has rules that apply to different contexts that permit “violence”. For example martial arts, contact sports and self-defence.

    It has long been accepted that parents have responsibility for their own children and the law change has now taken away some of that responsibility.

    When John Key says the legislation is working – I worry. If I were to say my car is working when someone expresses an interest in buying it, no one would for a second think that I meant “working well”.

    Is it working because ordinary parents are now criminals? Is it working to prevent children being shaken and murdered by step-parents? Is a smack abuse?

    These are important questions and left to politicians, they would remain unanswered.

    The test for the police of “in the public’s best interests” is a subjective nightmare of inconsistency.

    The New Zealand police have lost the respect of many people including myself due to preferential treatment for Helen Clark’s misdemeanours, pursuing cases where the evidence was shaky and wasting resources prosecuting shopkeepers who tried to defend themselves. If we can’t trust the police and we certainly cannot trust politicians then what authority can we trust?

    A woman I know spent nine months carrying her baby, with morning sickness in the first trimester, and toxaemia in the final few weeks. The baby’s head was too big for her birth canal and a caesarean with epidural was needed.

    That baby woke three or four times nightly for over six months causing countless lost hours of sleep. When that baby grew into a 10-year-old and one day went too far, with the woman already stressed out, she slapped her child on the face. Under this legislation, she could have become a criminal.

    In summary, the new law prevents smacks for correction without any basis, has a test that could never be absolute and objective, and was meant to stop deaths. In reality the architects of this law were uncomfortable with parents giving their children physical discipline and wanted to impose their ideals on others.

    Excessive cases of discipline were prosecuted before the law change and will continue to be under any law change.

    This referendum provides a limited opportunity for the public to voice their concern and if enough people support a law change then only the most resistant politicians will ignore their voice.

    * Phil Jackson lives in Auckland.

  • EDITORIAL: Smacking law misses real target

    GARTH McVICAR – Sensible Sentencing Trust | 4th August 2009

    Child abuse is the scourge of New Zealand; it is like a plague on the horizon, hanging over us like a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode.

    When will the next case occur and how horrific will the child’s injuries be?

    Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    That is the question Hawke’s Bay people are being asked in the referendum.

    Hitting a child with a pipe or a piece of 4×2 was never allowed and the perpetrators should always feel the full force of the law _ but banning smacking hasn’t and will never stop the person who would commit such an act.

    Let’s face it; the calibre of person who would do such a thing probably can’t read the law, anyway. And if they could they wouldn’t give a toss! Most of them only get a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket, anyway. I want child abuse stopped.

    But Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law has not done that, in fact child abuse is as rampant today as it was before the legislation changed.

    We should be encouraging good parents, but because a parent uses a smack to enforce a request or directive does that mean they are a bad parent? New Zealand has deteriorated from being THE safest country in the western world to now having a totally unacceptable -and escalating _ level of violent crime.

    In my opinion two things have been responsible for that:

    1) The politically correct nonsense that has destroyed the morals and values that made New Zealand great _ and safe.

    2) Weak-kneed politicians and lawmakers who have sanctioned this disastrous politically correct experiment.

    Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law is just another nail in the coffin of good commonsense parenting.

    Children who misbehave should be disciplined and taught boundaries; it should be up to that parent how they administer that discipline.

    Accountability, responsibility, respect and discipline may be considered old-fashioned but countries that are returning to traditional “old-school” morals and values are the countries that are now experiencing massive reductions in violent crime.

    Violent crime in New Zealand is still escalating alarmingly and banning smacking will be like all the other politically correct nonsense that has been forced upon us.

    It will have the opposite effect of what the well-meaning but seriously misguided instigators expected.

    The ban on smacking will ultimately lead to the building of more prisons as the impact of a totally undisciplined generation comes back to haunt us.

  • PM warned over smacking referendum

    PM warned over smacking referendum

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2733370/Hide-warns-of-public-backlash-on-smacking

    By GRAHAME ARMSTRONG – Sunday Star Times

    Last updated 05:00 09/08/2009

    ROB KITCHIN/Dominion Post
    HITTING KIDS: John Key has said the law will not be changed back unless it can be shown that good parents are being prosecuted for light smacking.

    ACT Party leader Rodney Hide has warned Prime Minister John Key of a public backlash if the government ignores the result of the controversial smacking referendum.

    Snubbing the referendum result sends a message that politicians know what’s best for the people and that the government is running a “nanny state”, Hide wrote in a letter delivered to Key’s office on Friday.

    The referendum question asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand.” The postal ballot, which is voluntary, opened on July 31 and closes on August 21. As of Thursday, chief electoral officer Robert Penden said 570,300 people had voted.

    Those who believe parents should be allowed to smack their children have campaigned strongly for a “no” vote. They want to repeal the 2007 law that removed the defence of reasonable force in child-assault cases.

    Key, however, has said the law will not be changed back unless it can be shown that good parents are being prosecuted for light smacking.

    He described the referendum question as “pretty weird” and a case of “yes means no and no means yes”.

    “It could have been written by Dr Seuss,” Key said.

    The referendum has also been controversial for its $9 million cost.

    In the letter to Key, Hide, who said he had been shocked by the number of parents who had been unfairly treated under the new law, urged the prime minister to act on the result of the referendum, a sign that the “no” campaign believe they will score a decisive victory.

    Hide told Key the law change two years ago had driven a wedge between parent and child and although some people might disapprove of the way others behaved, it did not give them the right to make the others criminals, “unless their behaviour is demonstrably causing harm”.

    Hide said one of the reasons Labour lost the last election was because people were sick of being told how to live their lives by politicians and “it would be a tragedy if, six months into your government, a nanny state tendency emerged once again in ignoring the clear wish of the people… ”

    “The referendum gives an opportunity for the public to speak. Their views must be respected.”

    But the “yes” campaign says the government and parliament should wait for a review of the new law, due to be completed this year, before it responds to the referendum.

  • Open letter to Sue Bradford from Larry Baldock Referendum Petition Organiser

    Open letter to Sue Bradford from Larry Baldock Referendum Petition Organiser
    9 August, 2009

    Sue, I watched the forum on Maori Television Friday night with you, Dr Hone Kaa and Bob McCoskrie.  How I wished I was there to respond to the drivel you continue to repeat in defence of your anti-smacking law.  “Adults can’t hit each other so adults shouldn’t be able to hit children,” is probably the main argument you and your supporters use to justify your law that is now criminalising good parents all over this country.

    Let me tell you why you are wrong and why your argument is flawed from the very beginning.

    Firstly, some adults can hit others without breaking the law. They are called police and we give them this authority because we know that in some circumstances someone must use reasonable force to correct the unacceptable behaviour of some adults in our society. If I were to throw a wobbly and begin to refuse to submit to the laws of this country, and act in a threatening manner to persons or property, the police could hit me with a baton, taser me with 50,000 volts of electricity, handcuff me, and backed by the justice system, even enforce my timeout in a correctional institution if necessary for a number of years.

    It is probably widely known in NZ that you have disliked this authority that is entrusted to our police ever since your early protesting days when you sought to assault some of our good men in uniform. Truth be known you probably would like this authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction to be taken away from the police as well as from parents, but most of us in this country are comfortable leaving such power in their hands.

    So let me say it again, it is not true that it is always against the law for an adult to use force against another adult if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Sounds very much like the old sec 59 doesn’t it!

    Your second error is made when you constantly bleat on about how children should be treated the same as adults in law because this neglects that fact that sec 21 & 22 of the crimes Act has always treated children differently by giving them specific exemptions from prosecution for any criminal activity they may commit.

    We do this for two reasons. Firstly, because they are not mature enough mentally and emotionally to be held accountable to adult laws. Your line of argument for equality would demand that when a two year old at Preschool lashes out and hits another two year old the police should be called to arrest them for assault, then prosecute and jail them like adults. That of course would be ridiculous.

    And secondly this exemption was given for children because it was widely accepted by society that they should not have their behaviour corrected by the police, but rather by their parents who would be in a much better position to do so.

    Now, as a consequence of your ill-considered law that has removed any legal authority for parents to ‘use force for the purpose of correction,’ we have empowered children and disempowered the parents that society reasonably expects to be responsible for their children’s correction and training for adulthood.

    Thirdly, this argument of yours is stupid because it does not recognise the difference in relationship between a husband and wife as two mature adults, and the relationship between adult parents and their children. This constant referral to an old law that permitted a husband to correct his wife adds nothing to the real debate about parental correction. Of course these laws of inequality between men and women should have been changed and it is a shame it took so long.
    Women’s suffrage was also slow in coming and the recognition of the equal right of women to vote was an important victory.  Your argument for equality between adults and children though, could lead to a suspicion that you might think that 3 and 4 year old children should vote as well. Perhaps this is a little close to the truth as I have read how the ‘yes vote’ campaigners have been calling for the opinions of children to be heard in the anti-smacking debate already.

    A husband is not responsible to make his wife go to school, a wife is not responsible to make her husband eat healthy vegetables, take a bath, etc (though some may argue they have to anyway) therefore the pleas you make for equal rights cannot be logically argued.
    Actually as most of us parents know, children have far more rights than we do because they get food, clothing and shelter all free of charge without having to lift a finger to work for it or pay for it.  And as parents we would say this is right and good, as we willingly become their slaves 24/7, because they are the most precious gifts we are ever entrusted with.
    Their value and worth are priceless. But with the awesome responsibility parents carry for the welfare of their children, they should be trusted in the same way as our police are entrusted with the authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction when needed, without the interference of the state.

    Sue, when my wife and I were traversing the country collecting signatures from thousands of good Kiwis from all walks of life, do you know what they were most upset about?

    They wanted to know when it was that you earned the right to become the ‘mother of the nation.’ What possesses you to think that you know more about raising children than the hundreds of thousands who have raised healthy, well adjusted, law abiding citizens in this country. Though they have been smacked and corrected they have not grown up violent and disrespectful, and this argument you make about smacking creating violent adults is not supported by any sensible research that distinguishes between reasonable force and a beating and abuse.

    In this wonderful free country of ours you are of course entitled to your views, and you can parent your kids and give advice to them on how they raise your grandchildren as much as you like, but don’t try and tell me my mother was a child abuser when she corrected me as a child.

    You know Sue, we have clashed a few times in debates on different topics over the past few years. I have never yet heard a proposition from you that really stood the test of common sense and proper scrutiny. How I would love to debate the anti-smacking issue with you again before all the votes are cast. Perhaps there may be some media organisation that could serve the public of NZ by setting up such a contest.

    A contest between just you and me. You, as the author of the anti-smacking law and dedicated supporter, and me, the organiser of the referendum petition and dedicated opponent.

    You said you would be willing to meet for a debate with me anywhere anytime. Let’s do it. The taxpayer will cover your travel; I’ll take care of my own.

    Regards,

    Larry Baldock
    Kiwi Party Leader

    021864833

  • Maori Television: Debate with Sue Bradford, Dr Hone Kaa and Bob McCoskrie

  • Referendum an investment in the economy and our future.

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    The TV One Colmar Brunton poll released today shows opposition to the anti-smacking law remains strong and consistent at 83%.
    Referendum Petition organiser Larry Baldock said the other result from the poll was that 3 out 4 New Zealanders felt the cost of the referendum was a waste of money and that is not surprising.
    “However, since the referendum requires the cost of at least two letters being posted to 3 million registered voters and the return of the voting papers by prepaid return, NZ Post will be receiving a Government investment of at least $3-4 million,” said Mr Baldock.

    “This cost could definitely have been avoided if the referendum had been held at the election last year when voters were going to the polls anyway.

    “Given that most of the estimated $9million cost of the referendum will be spent on postage, printing, advertising and employing staff for counting etc, it cannot be considered a waste. For a start the Government will get some of the money back from its SOEs like NZ Post and TV One as well as the GST from money spent elsewhere in the economy.

    “If Government spending in infrastructure is an investment in the economy and the future of our country then so is the referendum. The cost benefit ratio of reversing this ill-conceived socially destructive law will far outweigh a similar amount spent on a road, in my opinion.
    “As I have been saying in my radio ads, there are now only two people who can waste this money, the voter if he does not vote, and John key of he refuses to listen.”

    Ends

    contact
    Larry Baldock 021864833

  • Smacking Poll: People v Politicians

    MEDIA RELEASE

    3 August 2009

    Smacking Poll: People v Politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42


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

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

  • Waikato people smack law down

    Waikato people smack law down

    By BRUCE HOLLOWAY – Waikato Times

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

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

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

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

    Kiwi Party Press Release 28 July 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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