Family Integrity

Tag: Referendum

  • Key: I won’t ignore smacking vote

    Key: I won’t ignore smacking vote

    By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2779737/Key-I-won-t-ignore-smacking-vote

    Last updated 17:18 24/08/2009

    LATEST: Prime Minister John Key has unveiled a compromise option on the so-called anti-smacking law after it was overwhelmingly rejected in a referendum.

    Mr Key took a series of proposals to Cabinet today following Friday’s resounding referendum victory for opponents of the 2007 child discipline law change.

    Preliminary results found 87.6 per cent of those who voted ticked no to the question: ”Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    Mr Key said he would ask police and the Social Development Ministry to review their procedures, including the referral process between the two agencies, to identify any changes that might be required to ensure good parents were treated as Parliament intended.

    An independent person would be appointed to assist in the review.

    He had also asked the Social Development Ministry to bring forward its review of the law, which was due by the end of the year.

    That review is looking at the effect of the law change and its effects two years after implementation.

    Meanwhile, police would be asked to continue reporting on cases on a six monthly or annual basis for the next three years and include data on cases where parents or caregivers said the force used on a child was reasonable in the circumstances.

    “Cabinet has agreed that if future police data indicates a worrying trend the law will be changed,” Mr Key said.

    That had not been the case so far.

    He said parents who lightly smack their children should not fear being treated like criminals, and that he would not ignore the referendum.

    The measures outlined today were unlikely to placate those who supported the right to smack, and who wanted the law changed to explicitly allow light smacking.

    The referendum was organised after Green MP Sue Bradford’s member’s bill was passed in 2007. That law change amended the Crimes Act to remove the defence of reasonable force when an adult was charged with assaulting a child.

    Mr Key did not want Parliament’s time consumed relitigating the ”explosive” smacking debate and preferred putting in ”additional safeguards”.

    Voter turnout on the referendum’s initial results was 54 percent, with just over 1.6 million votes  cast.

    The final result will be declared tomorrow.

  • Cabinet Ministers Swamped With Emails

    Keep your emails going into the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

    Two links to help with this:

    Here are the addresses to write to:

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

    Here is an idea about what to say: we totally endorse Larry Baldock’s suggestion of merely repealing two clauses of the current act, rather than pass a new Bill

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

    MEDIA RELEASE

    24 August 2009

    Cabinet Ministers Swamped With Emails

    Family First NZ says that almost 800 emails have been sent in the past 24 hours to Ministers in Cabinet requesting that they decriminalise light smacking, and they continue to pour in.

    “The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers have been asked by families from all over New Zealand to vote to decriminalise light smacking in accordance with the wishes of the 88% who voted NO in the Referendum,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “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).”

    Grant Illingworth QC said in a published Op-Ed that “it is a serious thing to say that someone has committed a crime, irrespective of whether the person is prosecuted. Surely we should reserve that kind of condemnation for situations that really warrant the intervention of the criminal law.”

    And Jim Evans, Emeritus Professor of Law at Auckland University said “this is not clear legislation. In creating this law, Parliament abandoned its constitutional responsibility to say with clarity just which conduct is criminal. The section results from a political fudge.”


    Family First continues to plead with Cabinet to decriminalize light smacking and then to establish a Commission of Enquiry to target the real causes of child abuse.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Key mulling smacking options


    http://tvnz.co.nz/one-news/key-mulling-smacking-options-2937313/video

    PM John Key addresses the 73rd National Party Annual Conference in Christchurch, New Zealand (Source: NZPA)

    Key mulling smacking options (2:48

  • 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/

  • The opponents of the anti-smacking law outnumber the supporters of ANY New Zealand government

    I (Beretta Blog) spotted this over at Kiwiblog today:

    1. 1,420,959 – Voted no to treating correctional smacking as a criminal offence
    2. 1,053,398 – 2008 Voted for National when they won the election
    3. 935,319 – 2005 Voted for Labour when they won the election
    4. 838,219 – 2002 Voted for Labour
    5. 800,199 – 1999 Voted for Labour
    6. 701,315 – 1996 Voted for National

    This certainly puts the lie to the claim that the referendum is irrlevant or that it was ignored because of an alleged bias in its presentation. The reality is, just those who voted NO outnumber the supporters of any political party that has won an election in this country. Then add the 200,000 or so who voted in the minority, and you’ve got one heck of a popular and representative referendum!

    Let’s now sit, watch, and see what our Prime Minister is made of.

  • Putting the referendum result in context

    via TBR.cc by iwishart on 8/21/09

    It has been said that the overall turnout (54%) in the smacking referendum provides no mandate.

    If this were true, no city or regional council has a mandate to govern today and all should resign pending a fresh election, as those results are decided on turnouts of fewer than 50%.

    But more significantly, here’s something else to keep in mind.

    More than 1.4 million people voted ‘No’ on the referendum.

    In the 1999 election that swept Labour’s Helen Clark to power, 800,199 people voted Labour.

    In the same 1999 election, 629,932 voted National.

    In other words, the no vote in the referendum is almost double (75% higher in fact), than the number of voters who gave Helen Clark a mandate to run New Zealand for three years.

    It is more than double (130% higher in fact), than the number of people who voted National in 1999.

    In fact, it may even be that on the final tally, the ‘No’ vote actually exceeds the combined votes of both National and Labour at the 1999 election.

    Green Party MP and pro-smacking law campaigner Sue Bradford has tried to argue that if you take into account those who didn’t vote (46%), and add them to the 11% who voted in favour of her own position, that’s a majority of the population who support her and therefore the referendum gives “no mandate” for change.

    Taking that logic at face value, if we look at the 1999 election, the number of people who did not vote Labour or did not turn out to vote, clearly outweighs Labour’s 800,000 votes.

    Bradford is on a loser if she keeps riding down that path.

    Ironically, more people voted No in last night’s referendum than voted in favour of introducing MMP to our electoral system. Does that mean we should declare MMP null and void using Bradford’s logic?

    Perhaps, if we did, the Greens would disappear in a puff of (dope) smoke.