Helen Clark still smiles | The Kiwi Party Press Release |
November 18, 2008 | |
While we can rejoice in the change of Government that has occurred in NZ we should all realise that defeated Prime Minister Helen Clark will still be wearing a big smile after reading the supply and confidence agreements signed yesterday by ACT, UF and the Maori Party.
Why? Because none of them contain any initiatives to reverse and dismantle the consequences of her Governments family deconstruction policies over the last nine years. Many commentators have acknowledged that the anti-smacking law passed by 113 MPs in the last Parliament was the piece of legislation that led to the downfall of Helen Clark and the Labour Government. The subject arose time and again during the campaign yet none of the support parties have given any assurance to the citizens of this country that the referendum to be held on Aug 21st on the question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?” will be respected. It is particularly disappointing that Rodney Hide and the ACT Party ,who campaigned widely on their commitment to repeal the anti-smacking law, have not secured a commitment from John Key for the result of the referendum to be binding. Prostitution law reform, same sex marriage, (Civil Unions) abortion on demand and the criminalising of good parents for smacking their children are issues that none of the partners to the new Government seem prepared to use their influence to address. Underage girls will still be able to be taken from school to the nearest abortion clinic without parental notification or consent. The lowering of the drinking age which has been widely acknowledged to have been a mistake goes unmentioned, as does the awful problems of drug and alcohol addiction and abuse, and the lack of detox and rehabilitation facilities needed to treat those with these problems. There is no mention of policies to address our high rates of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse that are at the very core of our social problems, and nothing to promote a stronger and healthier marriage culture in this country without which we will never see a reduction in fatherless young criminals appearing before our youth court. The Kiwi traditional common law rights to hunt and fish to put food on the family table will continue to be threatened with no mention in any agreement of support for the Kahawai Legal Challenge. Recreational fishers still face their battle with the Ministry of Fisheries over the depletion of the fish stock in the inshore-shared fishery. It also looks like the Department of Conservation, Animal Health Board and Regional Councils will be able continue their insane campaign of dropping 1080 poison that will one day ruin our clean green image and potentially affect our primary exports. Helen Clark ‘s new society looks set to remain intact. New Zealand will never be the same again; at least not if it is left up to National and it’s allies ACT, UF and the Maori Party to reverse these things in the next three years. |
Tag: Referendum
-
Helen Clark still smiles
-
Voters Deliver Verdict on Anti-Smacking Law
MEDIA RELEASE
2 November 2008
Voters Deliver Verdict on Anti-Smacking Law
Family First NZ says that John Key and the National government should respond to the concerns of voters now rather than later, and amend the anti-smacking law to protect good parents.
“The Labour government was punished and the Greens failed to achieve their potential because of the opposition and anger over the anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Even so-called left wing commentators like Chris Trotter acknowledge that Labour was punished by losing up to 100,000 potential voters because of ramming through the law, and many voters were wary of supporting either Labour or the Greens because of this and similar “nanny state” laws and regulations such as shower pressure and dictating what’s in school lunchboxes. Many Labour supporters simply stayed home because of their opposition to the anti-smacking law.”
“National should acknowledge this and win the respect of the NZ voters by amending the law.. This would prevent good parents being investigated and persecuted for non-abusive correction.”
“With the support of ACT, there are the numbers in parliament to deal with this issue effectively and efficiently.”
“A costly Referendum is completely unnecessary. The voters have already spoken and it simply reinforces what countless polls and the two petitions, which gained over 600,000 signatures in total, have said.”
“It’s time we targeted actual child abuse and left good parents the freedom to raise great kids,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Stick that could yet beat Clark
Stick that could yet beat Clark
The smacking bill passed with a hefty majority in Parliament, but it has left a deep schism through middle New Zealand. Politicians from both major parties are resolutely refusing to make it an election issue, but it just won’t go away
By EMILY WATT – The Dominion Post | Friday, 24 October 2008
The ironic thing about the so-called anti-smacking law is that it may just cost Helen Clark the election. This, despite the fact that both the major parties seem to be trying to ignore it on the campaign trail.
No matter that National also backed the bill when it passed in May 2007 with a healthy majority 113-8.
And it appears to be irrelevant that it wasn’t even Labour’s idea, but a bill that was championed by Green MP Sue Bradford.
For disillusioned Labour supporters already grumbling about the nanny state, the smacking legislation was a step too far. Helen Clark – childless herself – was suggesting she knew more about raising their kids than they did. It was meddling, pure and simple.
Soon after the law was passed, Labour’s support, which had been sitting comfortably at 40 per cent, dropped while National’s grew. Up to 120,000 Labour party faithful may have decamped as a result.
The law was built on a bedrock of good intentions: an attempt to reduce the appalling child abuse statistics, the desire to provide children with the same protection from assault given to adults, and to change the law after several high-profile cases, including one involving a mother acquitted by a jury of “disciplining” her son with a horsewhip and cane.
As Canterbury University associate professor in law John Caldwell points out, it is not an “anti-smacking” law at all, but lists four circumstances in which smacking is acceptable, including when it is part of the normal daily tasks of good parenting and preventing a child from using disruptive behaviour.
“I’ve personally been a bit baffled about why it’s continued to be called the anti-smacking law,” he says. “I think there’s widespread misapprehension [about the bill].”
Yet its passage was preceded by months of vitriolic debate that drove thousands of opponents, led by the Destiny Church, to descend upon Parliament to defend their right to smack their children.
It raised hackles in the House, too. Gordon Copeland quit United Future over the issue – then missed the vote and had to have his vote recorded later.
Though police insist officers are using a “commonsense approach”, opposition has remained staunch.
Opponents presented 390,000 signatures to Parliament this year and have forced a referendum on the law asking: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
Miss Clark has done her best to kick the problem into touch by refusing to hold the referendum on election day. She says there was no time to prepare, and it is likely to be put to a postal vote next year.
Political commentator Chris Trotter says the law has had a devastating effect on Labour. Based on polls conducted around the time of the law, he estimates that between 100,000 and 120,000 Labour party faithful have deserted, mostly for National, because of it.
“The anti-smacking legislation, I think, really hit people where they lived. It really did feel as if the state was coming in the front door and telling parents how they should raise their kids.”
The National Party, which also supported the bill’s passage, seemed to have escaped untarnished in the fallout.
After leader John Key helped to work out a compromise clause with Miss Clark, his party learnt its full support to the bill. Mr Key received kudos for a masterly political breakthrough.
He has ruled out changing the law if he becomes prime minister unless there is evidence of good parents being prosecuted. But he told the Family First conference last month that he would consider changing the law if the referendum results were strong.
Ms Bradford says opponents of the bill purposefully muddied the waters by focusing on smacking rather than abuse of children. She believes about half the country was supportive of the bill.
Miss Clark did not go down the legislative path blindly. She would have known how deeply unpopular the bill was, but has said it was an issue she simply couldn’t turn away from.
Trotter says the prime minister has always been rigorous at looking at the big picture, “but on this one, she let her heart rule her head”.
“But if she goes down because of that, she’s gone down for something worth going down for.”
THE LEADERS SAY
National leader John Key and Labour leader Helen Clark were both asked in The Dominion Post’s readers’ questions whether they would look again at the law on smacking if the referendum was in favour of change.
John Key:
“The purpose of putting up the compromise position that we did was to ensure that the law would be administered as we thought was appropriate, which is to give parents some leeway for lightly smacking a child. Inconsequentially smacking a child was something that the police would not investigate. So our view is, as long as the police continue to administer the law as the compromise intended, and we don’t see examples where good parents are criminalised for lightly smacking a child, then we think the law’s working.”
Helen Clark:
“It seems to me that, when Parliament votes 113 to 8 for something, that’s near unanimity. I think Parliament as a whole was exercised about violence in the family and wanted to send a strong signal. Parliament did not want to send a signal to the police that matters of little consequence should be dragged before a court and the reality is that they’re not being dragged before a court.” She added that there was a high level of ambiguity in the referendum questions.
-
Home discipline still a hot topic
Home discipline still a hot topic
4:00AM Saturday Oct 25, 2008
By Carroll du Chateau
The debate has yet to die down. Photo / BOP Times
In a year when the morals and ethics of our political parties seem at an all-time low, voters are focused on policies sidling into our sitting rooms.
Many morally contentious issues are designated conscience votes by political parties, meaning their members do not have to vote along party lines.
The anti-smacking bill proposed by Sue Bradford of the Greens and finally cobbled together by Helen Clark and John Key started out as a conscience issue and ended up as a party vote for Labour, National and the Greens, who voted 100 per cent in favour.
Meanwhile, there was overwhelming opposition to the bill out in the community. Parents do not want the Government telling them how to parent. They say loss of discipline at home contributes to bad behaviour, out-of-control youngsters and, eventually, rising crime.
Many say the Government is sending the wrong message to the young.
“The idea that smacking should be against the law is ridiculous,” says Rodney Hide who, as leader of Act, stands for individual freedom and personal responsibility. “The fact that a small smack on the bottom should be up there with bashing kids with a pipe offends me.”
Mr Hide’s position is echoed by Richard Lewis of the Family Party (a Christian offshoot of last election’s Destiny Party) and Bob McCroskie of Family First. While Mr McCroskie’s organisation is a pressure group rather than a political party, it has signed on as a Third Party and is spending a chunk of its allocated $120,000 to push family values – and undermine this legislation.
Mr McCroskie says the law sends an underlying message that parents aren’t really in charge. “Kids are saying, ‘You can’t tell me what to do!’ We need to establish parenting within the law and parents don’t feel they’ve got it.” He talks about a consistent message (feeding through legislation) that we don’t rate parents.
“We don’t recognise parenting as a career choice. The message is, ‘If you want to be a contributing member of society, get yourself a real job.”‘
He is talking about paid parental leave, 20 hours’ free childcare and all the other measures designed to make it easy for mothers to go back to work.
Mr Lewis insists the old legal defence in smacking cases “never protected anyone from child abuse. I think this bill exposes parents unfairly. There are reports of children turning up to school with innocent scrapes and bruises and being asked, ‘Did your parents do it?”‘
Sue Bradford fervently disagrees. A mother of five, she insists she is a staunch defender of the family. “It’s the ability to beat your children that undermines the family.” She also defends the Parental Notification Bill, which allows teenagers under 16 to have abortions without their parents being aware of them. “My belief is that a woman’s body is her own.” ‘
Less high-profile is the ethical issue around the refusal to pay parents and family caring for disabled children and adults, while professional carers qualify for funding. The practice was challenged in a tribunal hearing brought against the Ministry of Health by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings on grounds of discrimination against parents and families.
While all parties except Labour express concern at the unfairness of the law, only the smaller parties are prepared to change it. United Future would introduce a caregivers’ allowance; the Maori Party would ensure disabled people and whanau could access support; the Progressives favour funding “as fiscal conditions permit”.
Labour, meanwhile, is committed to steering away from the issue, instead pledging to provide $37 million on extra daycare and respite services, family caregiver support, extra funding for home-based support services plus wider criteria for the DPB so low-income couples and sole parents could receive extra support to care for sick or disabled children.
One ethical area where the larger parties are taking a risk is with gangs. Gangs are seen as an integral part of our social fabric and stopping people gathering together breaches ethical boundaries. The proliferation of P has Labour and National talking about cracking down on gangs – again putting them out of step with Christian parties who claim the Government should focus on eliminating drug dealing rather than the gangs themselves.
Another matter bothering Mr Hide is the issue of self-defence “Some things are worse than being charged: A, being a wimp and B, being dead.”
* Since the law came in
Sixteen months after the law change in May last year, eight parents have been prosecuted. One received diversion, one was discharged without conviction and six cases are yet to be resolved.
This, says John Key, supports the view that the law is being well administered by police.
A petition for a referendum on the legislation, which asked the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” gained 390,000 signatures, 310,000 of which were judged valid. To trigger a referendum, 10 per cent of registered voters (285,000) need to sign it. The referendum will be held next year.
NOTE:
From a link above:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10539387&gallery_id=102944
National: Anti-smacking legislation to stay.
-
National Adopts ‘We Know Better Than You’ Attitude
MEDIA RELEASE
22 October 2008
National Adopts ‘We Know Better Than You’ Attitude
Family First NZ is labeling comments made by National leader John Key in the Dominion Post today regarding the anti-smacking law and Referendum as disappointing and deaf to the views of the overwhelming majority of NZ parents.
“It was hoped that National would respect the views of parents both when the law change was being discussed and when the 300,000-plus voters signed the petition demanding a change to the law and a Referendum,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “However Key’s comments today suggest that the attitude of ‘politicians know best’ is rampant not only in the Labour and Greens parties but also the National party now.”
In the interview, Key said “We’ll have respect for what the referendum says, but it wouldn’t make us change our mind” and we’ll “change the law if the law isn’t administered in the way that I think this Parliament intended it to be.”
“The problem is that what Parliament did under the orders of both Helen Clark and John Key was to vote against the will and mind of the huge majority of NZ’ers.”
“Polls continue to show overwhelming opposition to the anti-smacking law because it has failed to deal with actual child abuse, has targeted good families with investigation, prosecutions and persecution, yet has been trumpeted by supporters as a success because nobody has been imprisoned.”
“NZ needs laws that target actual child abuse, prevent child abuse deaths, and that target the major contributing causes including drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, and rotten parents – as highlighted by the tragic Nia Glassie case.”
Family First has already provided documented evidence to John Key that good families are being both persecuted and in some cases prosecuted as a result of the anti-smacking law.
-
Another Smacking Poll – Same Response
MEDIA RELEASE
29 September 2008
Another Smacking Poll – Same Response
Family First NZ says that the NZ Herald poll showing 86% opposition to the anti-smacking law is further proof that the law is fundamentally wrong and should be changed.
“This is not 86% of NZ’ers who want to ‘thrash and beat’ their children as was suggested by the prime minister last year,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This is simply NZ’ers saying that a law supposedly designed to tackle child abuse should not end up targeting good parents raising great kids.”
“Appropriate smacking for the purpose of correcting, training and teaching should never be a crime exposing parents to possible police investigation and CYF intervention.”
“The law is fundamentally flawed because it fails to deal with the problem it was supposed to – child abuse – and implicates law-abiding parents in the process.”
The latest poll follows a string of similar polls in 2008 including:
u 74% parents should be able to smack Research International Feb 2008
u 85% want law changed to allow light smacking Curia Research – poll commissioned by Family First May 08
u 85% anti-smacking law should be scrapped TVNZ Website poll June 08
u 81% say there should be referendum on smacking legislation at this year’s election NZ Herald Poll 25 June 2008 Total Votes: 4624
u One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective? No 87% Unsure 7% Yes 7% Littlies Magazine online poll July 2008
“The guarded support for the ‘compromise’ amendment is parents simply hoping that the police may use some common sense in applying this flawed law. Yet evidence has shown that this is not the case, and many parents are more concerned about the way CYF are using the law for unwarranted intervention in good families.”
“The message is loud and clear to the politicians,” says Mr McCoskrie. “We don’t need a costly referendum to tell us what we already know. Simply change the law so that good parents are not criminalised, and then start targeting the real causes of child abuse including drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
MP Gets Told By Voters to Change Anti-Smacking Law
MEDIA RELEASE
18 September 2008
MP Gets Told By Voters to Change Anti-Smacking Law
Family First NZ says that a survey on attitudes to the anti-smacking law by Invercargill MP Eric Roy showing huge opposition to the anti-smacking law is indicative of the NZ-wide sentiment.
The survey, which was reported in the Southland Times today, and completed by almost 12,000 people revealed that 83% wanted the anti-smacking law overturned. Ironically, Eric Roy voted for the anti-smacking law.
“Attempts to suggest that NZ’ers need to move on and that opposition to the law change is decreasing are simply not true,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“This law was fundamentally flawed because it implicated good parents raising good kids, and has failed to do anything to deal with the real causes of child abuse – factors such as methamphetamine (P) use, alcohol abuse, family breakdown, poverty and a lack of support services for parents under stress.”
“The big question is whether the politicians are now willing to listen to the voters, or will MP’s continue to tell parents how to raise their kids because they know better,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“We don’t really need a referendum – we simply need politicians willing to listen to what voters clearly want.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/southlandtimes/4696337a6568.html -
Family policies released at Family First Forum
Family policies released at Family First Forum
Kiwi Party Leader Larry Baldock released the party’s Family Policy brochure at the Family First Forum today.
Speaking to the forum delegates Mr Baldock said, “This brochure brings together our policies from a wide range of portfolios which will, we believe, impact positively on New Zealand families.
Of course our number one priority is to ensure that the referendum on the anti-smacking law is respected and that law repealed to return parental authority back to the homes of good parents all over this country.”
“This list of family policies makes it abundantly clear that our vision for the strengthening of family life in New Zealand does not rest on one issue alone. The Kiwi party is not a single issue party. The truth is our nation’s families have been negatively affected by so many government policies and laws over the past few decades. These now need to be rectified and we have a huge amount of work ahead of us in that regard. It is difficult to prioritise just the “top ten” when they are all so important to the health of our nation.
“What we can be clear about is that the top ten priorities released by the National party at their conference last month do not have a single item that addresses the social engineering of Labour’s last nine years.
“We believe it is vitally important that we establish a Royal Commission to begin ‘understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse.’ We have already written comprehensive draft terms of reference for that Commission’s task, which would also include reviewing the impact of the DPB as part of welfare reform.
“As partner to the next government we would immediately begin investing in pre-marriage, marriage enrichment and parenting education programmes to put the nation on a path towards rebuilding stronger families.
“Our family policies will make a very positive difference to the quality of life for current and future generations of Kiwis. We look forward to the support of the family organisations represented at this important Forum, as we embark on our election campaign over the next 8 -10 weeks” said the Kiwi Party leader.
ENDS
Attachments:Family_policy.pdf
Draft_Terms_of_reference_for_Royal_Commission-1.pdf