MEDIA RELEASE
28 June 2009
Referendum Cost Unfortunate Outcome of Political ‘Deafness’
Family First NZ is not surprised by a poll today that says that 77% of NZ’ers think the Referendum is a waste
of money, and says that the government should save the taxpayer $9 million on a postal referendum and
simply fix the anti-smacking law now as demanded by 80% of kiwis.
“It is incredible that in the midst of a recession, the government will be spending that amount of money to tell
them what they already know – that the law should be fixed,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family
First NZ.
“But that is the unfortunate price of ‘political deafness’. The blame for having to even have a Referendum is
pointed fairly and squarely at the politicians. Even supporters of the Referendum would say that the
Referendum is a waste of money – but completely necessary in the circumstances.”
“The Referendum has resulted in a huge amount of time, energy and resources being spent collecting the
300,000-plus signatures to force the Referendum in the hope that the government would be spurred to amend
the law and target the real causes of child abuse. Unfortunately they remained deaf.”
“The law can be easily fixed by removing the criminality of parents who use reasonable force for the purpose
of correcting their children.
“The politicians have tried to paint the Referendum as confusing. They should try explaining the anti-smacking
law to parents,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“NZ’ers are crying out for politicians to listen to the voice of the people and to tackle the real causes of child
abuse, without criminalising and threatening good parents with investigation and interference from already
overworked police and CYF social workers,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Mob. 027 55 555 42
Tag: Politics
-
Referendum Cost Unfortunate Outcome of Political ‘Deafness’
-
Senior Labour MP Says Referendum Not Confusing
MEDIA RELEASE
29 June 2009
Senior Labour MP Says Referendum Not Confusing
Family First NZ is welcoming comments by a senior Labour MP that the Referendum wording is not confusing.
Pete Hodgson was a Minister of Health, Minister for Economic Development, Minister of Research, Science and Technology and Minister for Tertiary Education under the previous Labour government.
A constituent recently wrote to the MP and said:
““Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in NZ” This is a most unambiguous question: given that the defense of reasonable force was repealed in the legislation passed last year as part of Sue Bradford’s bill and therefore parents who even lightly tapped their child could be prosecuted if the police elected to do so. It is misleading for anyone to say the above is an ambiguous question. It is patently clear what it is asking. The reason to argue for ambiguity is to try and confuse the issue in order to undermine the referendum. To refuse to vote on the basis of the ambiguity of the question is the ultimate act of fence sitting and self preservation. If one believes the question is wrong then one and the legislation is correct then one should vote accordingly!”
In response, Mr Hodgson simply wrote “agreed”.
“The smokescreen which has been created around the Referendum has simply been an attempt by some politicians to attempt to ridicule and dismiss an issue that they don’t want to resurface,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It has been a direct attack on the process of democracy. And the cost can only be attributed to their deafness on this issue.”
Family First is calling on the government to amend the anti-smacking law so that a non-abusive smack for the purpose of correction is not a criminal offence.
“300,000 signatures, an 80%-average in all the polls, and now a senior Labour MP, shows the country is not confused as to what they want on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
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
-
Real Issues – Referendum
Real Issues – Referendum
Friday, 26 June 2009, 9:24 am
Real Issues No. 344 – Referendum
Maxim Institute – Real Issues – No. 344 25 June 2009 http://www.maxim.org.nz
REFERENDUM ANGST
The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like ‘the law is working’ and ‘the question is weird.’ The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. ‘Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’ Committed to his brokered ‘compromise’ John Key can’t afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can’t afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent’s right to make disciplinary decisions. So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout. This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don’t care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it. Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum–from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone–it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy–especially when others are not.
Enrol to vote http://www.elections.org.nz
-
Referendum
CONFUSED?
You soon will beFor the past 72 hours, politicians and commentators have screemed that the Referendum question is confusing
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ”
It seems pretty clear to us! The law currently says that a good parent raising great kids who uses a light smack for the purpose of correction is committing a criminal offence – subject to a possible complaint, possible investigation and temporary removal of kids by CYF, and possible investigation and in some cases prosecution by the police. (these have all happened – view cases HERE)
But please take a quick moment to listen to this…
Green MP Sue Bradford attempts to explain the effect of the anti-smacking law to an increasingly confused National Radio’s Sean Plunket this morning Classic Confusion!!!
Try and listen to the whole thing – and then ask yourself “so what am I legally allowed to do??” (An excellent written summary by Blogger Dave Crampton HERE )Doesn’t it seem incredible that our politicians are confused by the Referendum question – yet expect parents to understand the anti-smacking law, how it will be enforced, and its effect on how they should parent.
This is why the referendum question is worded the way it is – because not even Sue Bradford knows the present answer.
And that’s why we’ll continue to fight to have it fixed.
Have a great weekend
Bob McCoskrie
National Director -
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
-
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) -
A very simple question
A very simple question
cross-posted from Big News, 14 April 2009 and http://section59.blogspot.com/ 16 April
Bill English was asked on Radio Live today whether a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction. He was asked at least six times. Here’s the transcript. It’s a classic.Radio Live Breakfast Show – 14 April 09
INTERVIEWER: The Labour Party seemed to have amended their position on Section 59, the smacking legislation. What do you think? Should a smack be allowed as part of a good – as good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, the Government’s position hasn’t changed since a compromise was done with the previous Labour Government. And the Prime Minister has said many times, as has the rest of the Government, that if there is evidence that law abiding parents are being wrong(ly)prosecuted inconsistent with the spirit of that law then we would look to change it. And has been – and there hasn’t yet been considerable enough evidence to warrant changing it.
INTERVIEWER: Well, did you think – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Well, look, I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land and needs to be enforced in a sensible way. And…
INTERVIEWER: But do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: I – I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land that should be enforced. If there is evidence that it is being enforced in instances where it’s – where it’s inappropriate because the event is
trivial or [indistinct]…
INTERVIEWER: No, no. Sorry, Minister, I just wanted to know whether you could answer that, that should – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, it’s a matter of complying with the law of the land.
INTERVIEWER: Right, it’s a simple question, isn’t it?
BILL ENGLISH: It’s like asking whether the speed limit should be – whether you should drive at 120 kilometres an hour. The law – the law…
INTERVIEWER: Well, clearly you shouldn’t.
BILL ENGLISH: That’s right. Well, the law – the law, as it stands, is the law that should be enforced.
INTERVIEWER: Do you – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental
correction? It’s simple yes or no, isn’t it?
Bill ENGLISH: Well, look, the law takes a stance about smacking and it gives the police some discretion about how they use their capacity to prosecute. If there is evidence that they are prosecuting people inappropriately, then that current government would look at changing the law.So this is the position of Bill English. Laws should be enforced. The smacking law should be complied with. A smack as part of good parental correction is against the law. There is no evidence that, quote, “law abiding parents are being wrong(ly) prosecuted”, unquote, for breaking the law when lightly smacking their kids.
What Radio Live should have asked is this: If “law abiding parents” can smack their kids for corrective purposes, how can law abiding parents be wrongly prosecuted, given correction is explicitly a crime?