Join Us

New form

Dear Editor,

I the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg, Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org) am hereby sending you a manuscript "The Empresses' new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!"

Very truly yours
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney at law
President or the NKMR/NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org

The Empresses' new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!

One year ago, I travelled 36 hours from Gothenburg, Sweden to Auckland at the invitation of the Section 59 Coalition. I came to testify at the Parliamentary hearing on the private member's Bill that proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and to inform - and to warn - the general New Zealand public of the effects of the Swedish smacking ban.

When I left New Zealand after my two-week stay, I was hopeful that the bill would not pass because over 80 % of the population was not in favour of it. I had also thought that New Zealand was a democratic country that respected the will of the people. My warnings were backed by my presentation of 30 of the court cases that I have collected for my coming PhD thesis on the Swedish anti-smacking law. These show how parents were prosecuted and sentenced to fines or prison and their children were taken into forcible public care and separated from them and placed in foster homes. But it all fell on deaf parliamentarian ears. My hopes were finally crumbled in May when the compromise was reached and the bill became law because the MPs were forced to vote against their consciences. Fortunately, a few MPs with high integrity refused to vote for the law: one even resigned from his Party because of it.

New Zealand has made a historical mistake by following Sweden's example to ban smacking. New Zealand's law has gone even farther than Sweden's in that it prescribes criminal penalties for smacking parents and the Children's Commissioner cheered - just like the crowds did at the Emperor's new clothes. The Swedish law doesn't prescribe criminal penalties, but Parliament was informed that the new law would be sanctioned by the provisions of the Penal Law. And so it has been.

Section 59 was good legislation and as such it should not have been tampered with in any way. Sue Bradford sent three strong messages:

1 - She knows best - better than the legally educated judges on whose discretion it lies to decide what is "reasonable force";
2 - She does not trust the judgement of the courts;
3 - She thinks previous rulings were wrong.

http://www.nzcpr.com/
NZCPR Weekly

21 July 07
NZCPR Weekly - Topic: Welfare
Breaking Through
Muriel Newman

Breaking Through

Early last year a little boy was brutally beaten to death by his mother and her partner:

“The child's blood was also found throughout the house. In two rooms - the living area and his bedroom - the blood had splattered so high it hit the ceiling”.

Graphic photographs taken during his post-mortem showed three year old Ngatikaura Ngati’s body had suffered repeated beatings. His left arm was so badly damaged that it had swollen to twice its normal size. When pathologists cut it open they found all the tissue had already died from the beatings he had suffered.

The investigating Police Officer Richard Middleton said, "This is as bad as anything I have seen on a child or any human”.

Ngati’s mother had given him to childless relatives when he was a month old. They raised him as their own. But shortly after his third birthday, his mother wanted him back: “she was claiming a benefit for more children than were living with her and she was afraid of being caught out”. Three months later, the little boy was dead. (See From Happiness to Hell, Herald>>>) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10439204

This shocking case highlights the malevolent nature of child abuse in New Zealand – a vicious crime committed by a mother and her partner who were so hungry for benefit money that they placed their dependency on government welfare above the safety and happiness of their child.

For that reason, the second defendant in this case – and in most other child abuse cases in New Zealand - should be the State. The worst child abusers in this country are the government which has knowingly cemented in place social policies that create the environment for child abuse to flourish. Their social welfare policies lead to the disintegration of marriage, family and community as benefit recipients become hooked, realising that they are significantly better off if they stay single and on welfare.

Through unconditional state handouts to vulnerable women with children, whole communities have been created where the two-parent family has vanished, where work is rare or non-existent, and where social degradation – squalor, alcoholism, drugs, violence, crime - is commonplace.

Just last week, the Herald on Sunday reported on child abuse cases at Auckland’s Starship Hospital, stating that last year’s child abuse admissions were the worst on record. It also claimed that the figures for head injuries for Maori children are the highest in the world. (See Doctor Decries Staggering Level of Child Abuse>>>)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10451548&pnum=0

Yet the Government’s response to this national crisis is a shameful silence.

In contrast, the Howard Government in Australia has invoked a state of emergency to deal with their child abuse crisis - which is at a level similar to ours. They have introduced controls on dysfunctional families that include compulsory health checks on all at-risk children, linking benefit payments to school attendance, and quarantining 50 per cent of welfare payments to ensure that funds are used for children’s welfare, not booze, drugs or gambling.

The opposition Labour Party, recognising the seriousness of the problem, has pledged to put in place even tougher measures if they become the government, withholding all welfare payments from families that do not do the right thing by their children.

New Zealand remains the only country in the world that has wide open access to the sole parent benefit. Here, girl can get pregnant as teenager and literally have a benefit income for life. She can remain on the Domestic Purposes Benefit just so long as she doesn’t work, doesn’t marry, and from time to time has another baby to keep her eligibility current.

Yet life on a benefit is the very worst incentive that any government could possibly dangle in front of vulnerable young girls as it creates a perilous home environment for their children. Maori girls in particular are susceptible to the government’s anti-marriage welfare ‘bait’ with figures from the Ministry of Social Development showing that Maori teenage parents are on a benefit at a rate of 85 per 1,000, more than eight times higher the non-Maori rate of 10 per 1,000.

Just last week the Ministry of Social Development released a report showing that the number of children living in financial hardship in New Zealand has - incredibly - almost doubled in two decades from 12% in 1982 to 23% in 2004, with sole parent households with children being by far the worst off. (see MSD Hardship Report>>>) http://www.cyf.govt.nz/documents/Child_death_from_maltreatment.pdf

That is why the government’s refusal to fundamentally reform welfare, in order to move sole parents off benefits into supported work and a decent life, borders on being criminally negligent.

In contrast to a situation here, politicians in the US took action over a decade ago: “The designers of welfare reform were concerned that prolonged welfare dependence had a negative effect on the development of children. Their goal was to disrupt intergenerational dependence by moving families with children off the welfare rolls through increased work and marriage... Ten years after welfare reform became the law those who have enjoyed the greatest benefits are the most disadvantaged single parents with the most significant barriers to employment. In particular, young, never-married mothers with low levels of education and young children”. (see The Impact of Welfare Reform by the Heritage Foundation>>>)http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm

Figures from Statistics NZ confirm the dramatic move in New Zealand away from childbearing within marriage. Historically, only around five percent of babies were born outside of marriage. But largely as a result of the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in the seventies, the trend changed and by 1990 the rate had increased to 35 percent. As of last year, 47 percent of all babies born in New Zealand were born outside of marriage, which means that almost a half of all newborns in this country are being born into family structures that put them at an increased risk of child abuse.

That is not to say that all children born into de-facto relationships will be harmed; of course they won’t. Nor that all sole parents do a bad job; on the contrary many do an exceptional job and raise great kids. But just as there are no guarantees that children raised in two-parent married families will be happy and safe, on the balance of probability married families represent the safest of all environments in which to raise children, with un-married families the most dangerous.

Encouraging marriage is the approach that has now been taken by legislators in the United States in order to improve the outlook for children. It is also the conclusion that has been reached in “Breakthrough Britain: Ending the Costs of Social Breakdown”, a new report produced by the British Conservative Party’s Social Justice Commission. This report, which builds on last year’s “Breakdown Britain”, finds that the breakdown of the two-parent family and the decline of marriage is at the heart of the collapse of values in British society. It proposes a number of strategies to strengthen families and encourage marriage through adjustments to the tax and benefit systems. (see Breakthrough Britain>>>)http://87.106.6.204/default.asp?pageRef=182

The report also discusses the significant contribution made by the voluntary sector, which works at the coalface of social dysfunction, and it recommends that it be liberated from the domination of state control.

According to this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Peter Allen, who founded and headed the Prince of Wales Trust, the situation here in New Zealand is dire:

"During my eleven years of involvement with some of the country’s most complex young people I saw many valuable youth initiatives destroyed by the government’s youth policies and bureaucratic pressure. Unfortunately their loss is becoming increasingly apparent as we see more youth crime, assaults on elderly people, property damage, theft, drunken behaviour, increased drug abuse and more truancy from school than ever before".

He goes on to warn, "This Government’s destructive social policies have created divisions between cultures, within families, and across communities, and until there is a full realisation that the problems are politically motivated - and the people of this country demand appropriate action - the situation will continue to deteriorate". (To read Peter's article "The Bureaucratic Destruction of Private Sector Youth Support Services" click the sidebar link>>>) http://www.nzcpr.com/guest59.htm

Peter is right. Many of the complex social problems that we face in New Zealand – like the dreadful child abuse crisis – are being caused by politically motivated government policy. But until the public demands action, there will be no breaking though and as sure as night follows day, more and more innocent children like little Ngatikura Ngati will die.

Poll: The poll this week asks whether you would favour the introduction of policies to encourage marriage in New Zealand.
To vote click here>>> http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm

[Comments received during the week on the column and the poll will be posted here>>>]
http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=233

Last week's poll asked: Should the welfare reform proposed by the Howard Government in Australia should be adopted in New Zealand?
Result: 96% said Yes and 4% said No.
You can read the hundreds of comments that were submitted by clicking here>>>. http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231

Housekeeping: Please feel free to forward this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested. A printer-friendly version is on the http://www.nzcpr.com website.

Don't forget that we are always keen to consider publication of opinion pieces for the website Soapbox Series http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm - why not visit the page and send in your submission.

To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>. muriel@nzcpd.com

NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based forum at http://www.nzcpr.com for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or by post at PO Box 984 Whangarei.
 

8 July 2007 - people.co.uk - EXCLUSIVE: SMACKING PARENTS WON'T FACE PRISON

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=smacking-parents-won-t-face-prison--&method=full&objectid=19423641&siteid=93463-name_page.html

EXCLUSIVE: SMACKING PARENTS WON'T FACE PRISON
EXCLUSIVE Human rights 'farce' faces axe
By Nigel Nelson
PARENTS who smack their children are likely to be spared the threat of jail under a Government rethink.

Mums and dads currently face up to five years in prison if they bruise or graze kids.

But outraged parents say the penalties - brought in two years ago under European human rights laws - are too tough.

They want the courts to distinguish between disciplining naughty kids and child abuse. Now the Government is to ask parents' views over the summer after other surveys showed that two-thirds are in favour of disciplinary smacking. Tory children's minister Tim Loughton said: "The present law is unworkable nonsense - it just criminalises parents.

"We need to clearly define the line between chastisement by parents as they see fit and violence towards children." The current law allows "reasonable chastisement" but if a mark is made that could be treated as actual bodily harm.

Critics say that fails to recognise the difference between responsible parents and those who beat their kids black and blue.

The results of the Government survey will be announced by Schools Minister Andrew Adonis in the autumn when a law change will be considered.

Child protection organisations who want an outright ban on smacking will also be consulted.....
 

2 July 2007 - hbtoday - EDITORIAL - All feeling smack in checkout

http://www.hbtoday.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3740159&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

EDITORIAL - All feeling smack in checkout

02.07.2007
LOUIS PIERARD
With two suspicious deaths of infants at the weekend the controversy over whether cabinet minister David Cunliffe smacked his child in a supermarket seems obscenely petty.

But therein lies the point.

Mr Cunliffe - who denies he "smacked" his child - and his family are distressed by the attention received from "Families First", which has lobbied against the anti-smacking legislation.

And who could blame him?

His parenting methods - and, no doubt, those of all who have supported the anti-smacking legislation - have become hostage to politics. Such scrutiny, though unkind, is not surprising.

The law's opponents would relish the chance to test the new law on one of its high-profile advocates. However, all parents are in the same uncomfortable position as Mr Cunliffe, who was in fact congratulated by Families First, which said he "did what any half-decent parent would have done in the circumstances".
While the Government's accommodation reached with National for its support of the bill exempted "inconsequential" events from prosecution, that level has yet to be determined.

And despite repeated assurances that good parents won't be hauled before the courts, how can anyone know?

Is a small, corrective smack in a supermarket a forgivable "technical breach" or might it be eligible for prosecution if drawing a complaint or witnessed more than once?

How much discretion might police be allowed if the precautionary principle gives authority to finger-pointers and mischief makers (who appear to be the beneficiaries of the new law)?

The triviality of the Cunliffe affair seen beside the baby deaths - the importance of which it has all but eclipsed - is instructive because it underlines the worthlessness of sending messages with a prescriptive, intrusive law.

Most New Zealanders believe that not only the new law fails to honour its promise to protect the young but it will also hit the wrong targets.

Meanwhile the real problem will remain unaddressed.

Sue Bradford's bill won endorsement from many disgusted at the level of child abuse in New Zealand and who rightly believed something needed to be done. However, instead of focusing on baby bashers and killers (collectivist ideology absolves individual wrongdoers by making everyone else accountable) Parliament found blanket disapproval was far more convenient and put all parents on notice that they had better be on their best behaviour.

So disconnected have our politicians become from their constituents that they just cannot understand why they have deeply offended so many - even when one of their own is used to make the point.
 

2 July 2007 - newstalkzb - MP in smacking controversy

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=120143

MP in smacking controversy
2/07/2007 7:36:02

Opponents of the new anti-smacking law believe the actions of a Labour MP prove its stupidity.

There are claims Cabinet Minister David Cunliffe was spotted smacking his child at LynnMall shopping centre in Auckland, despite the fact the MP voted in favour of legislation repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Independent MP Gordon Copeland was one of eight MPs to oppose the bill. He says Mr Cunliffe's case highlights the pitfalls of the new law, which outlaws smacking unless it is to save a child from harm. Police have discretion to decide whether to prosecute.
 

30 June 2007 - Family First - Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack

30 June 2007 - Family First - Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack

MEDIA RELEASE
30 June 2007

Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack

Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.

Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.

“We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.”

“It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances.”

“However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated.“

“The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF’s for possible investigation and intervention.”

“That’s how farcical this law is,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children’s Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe’s actions totally unacceptable.”

But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.

ENDS


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

26 June 2007 - The Timaru Herald - Smacking law not yet used in Timaru

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/4107835a6571.html

Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
By RHONDA MARKBY - The Timaru Herald | Tuesday, 26 June 2007

The new law banning the smacking of children might be three days old, but Timaru police are yet to use it.

Senior Sergeant Mark Offen was not surprised that there had been no complaints, adding allegations of assault on children by either adults or children themselves, were not common.

In the less serious cases officers could use their discretion as to whether a charge was laid. Mr Offen said there still had to be sufficient evidence for police to lay a charge and take the matter to court.
 

22 June 2007 - Maxim Institute - real issues - A LEAP IN THE DARK

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00273.htm

Maxim Institute - real issues - No. 258
Friday, 22 June 2007, 10:50 am
Column: Maxim Institute
21 June 2007
http://www.maxim.org.nz

A LEAP IN THE DARK

This week the Police released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 detailing how they intend to decide whether parents will or will not be prosecuted when they use physical discipline. The changes to the law around disciplining children will come into effect on 22 June 2007, making it technically illegal to use mild physical force for the purposes of correction. However, if the offence is 'inconsequential' the police have discretion whether to prosecute.

The guidelines suggest that even though infrequent smacking may be considered inconsequential, prosecution may still occur after repetitive incidents. Similarly, even 'inconsequential' reports of force must be passed on to the Police family violence co-ordinator under the guidelines. The police have also been careful to point out that the true impact of this law will not be seen until case law develops. This means that until someone is prosecuted under the new section 59, the way the guidelines will be applied cannot be predicated. The changes to section 59 are, as many opponents warned, a leap in the dark.

The release of these guidelines coincides with the findings of a national poll on people's attitudes towards the new law, conducted by Curia research, a market research firm. The results show that 78 percent of parents surveyed will still smack their children to correct their behaviour if they believe it is reasonable to do so. Only 16 percent said that they would not. This suggests that people are going to be willing to break the law and whether they will be punished for doing so will depend on how the police view their actions.

This raises an interesting question; will the vast majority of New Zealanders actually ignore this new legislation long-term or will the law eventually change New Zealanders' perspective on parental discipline? Sweden is an interesting test case because physical punishment against children was banned in 1979, yet parents continued to physically discipline their children. While 34 percent of those born before 1979 indicated they had received physical punishment from their parents, this only dropped to 32 percent for those born during or after 1979. The results of the poll by Curia research tentatively suggest that a similar pattern may emerge in New Zealand, which is the inevitable result of a law that relies on police guidelines and court precedents.
 

22 June 2007 - dailypost - Smacking doesn't make me a bad mum - Rotorua parent

http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3739024&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

Smacking doesn't make me a bad mum - Rotorua parent

22.06.2007
By KRISTIN MACFARLANE

SINGLE mum Augusta Scott has her hands full with two young boys, Elijah, 10 and Chance, 8.

Most of the time they're good kids.

But sometimes if they're naughty, she'll give them a light smack.

Ms Scott says that doesn't make her a bad mother.

However, she's worried that from today parents like her could come under unfair scrutiny.

Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill - the anti-smacking bill - comes into effect today after being passed into law last month.

Ms Scott said as a single mum it could be difficult controlling two young boys who sometimes fought.

In these circumstances, a light smack was necessary, she said.

"You can't say naughty boy and send them to time out because it doesn't work," she said.

"If it's controlled it can provide the effective reinforcement when you're trying to teach a child something.

"It's all the parents [who] discipline with control [who] are going to be under the spotlight."

Ms Scott has a teenage daughter who was smacked when she misbehaved.

It had not had a negative affect on her, Ms Scott said.

Ms Scott said the bill also had the potential for children to make false complaints because it has been such a high-profile issue.

"Guaranteed, it will happen."

John Wilson of the Rotorua police child abuse section agreed.

"There's always been the potential for false complaints," Mr Wilson said. However, he did think the bill was good in the sense that it changed the Crimes Act and removed the defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.

"It's certainly a step in the right direction," he said.

He didn't think responsible parents needed to worry about getting into trouble.

"The whole thing has to be viewed with a good amount of common sense," he said.
 

21 June 2007 - tvnz - Anti-smacking guide for police

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1190535

Anti-smacking guide for police
Jun 21, 2007

With the new anti-smacking law coming into effect on Friday, police have released guidelines on how staff should handle it.

The guide outlines situations where it is okay to smack. But parents opposed to the bill say the guidelines confirm it is their worst nightmare.

The police guidelines acknowledge children are unpredictable. A smack is okay to stop a child running onto a road, experimenting with electrical outlets or behaving in a criminal or offensive way that may harm themselves or others.

Police can also look the other way if the smack is deemed inconsequential or so light it doesn't matter.

But if it comes to police attention, it will be recorded.

"It's a record of police action and potentially if there is a sequence of incidents relating to a particular family or person then police clearly would be failing in their duty not to look at the matter appropriately," says Pope.

In the guide, police state that where force is used against a child, they must consider the amount of force used before deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

If an assault is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, the event will be recorded and the file forwarded to a family violence co-ordinator.

But the guide states that "while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent."

Simon Barnett says he is a good father to his four children and smacking is all part of that.

"Then you say 'look if you do that again daddy's going to give you a smack on the count of three. One, two' and if they do it again I will smack her wee hand," Barnett says.

He believes police guidelines on the new anti-smacking law confirm his worst fears that parents like him will be criminalised.

"Even if it's inconsequential smacking, your name goes on a police computer forever as a violent offender. That is unconscionable," he says.

Police say that is just business as usual.

Police use a number of sources for registering complaints, offences or incidents they attend as part of our overall statistical gathering," says Rob Pope, police deputy commissioner.

Like any new law, this one will have to be tested through the courts to see what the judiciary decides is inconsequential smacking or not. The police statement says that until cases go through the courts it is not clear how the law will be applied.

"Well I'm sorry, I don't want to have to be the test case - some poor child getting dragged through the court system and some family suffering that fate," says Barnett.

Police will review the guidelines in three months.

Law "confusing"

Bob McCoskrie from lobby group Family First says the guidelines show the law is confusing.

"If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing," says McCoskrie.

But bill author Sue Bradford says the guidelines really support the idea behind the bill. She says it is clear that using weapons, or hitting kids around their head is inappropriate and also gives good rules around what is.

CYF won't change approach

And it will be business as usual for Child Youth and Family when the anti-smacking legislation comes into effect on Friday.

CYF says it will look at each notification involving physical discipline in the same way as any other allegation of assault.

Spokeswoman Lee Harris Royal says a smack on the back of the hand to signal displeasure will not reach an intervention stage.

In repeated events where police warnings have been unsuccessful involving the same family, only then will CYFS intervene.

But whether the use of physical force against a child constitutes an offence, will still be a police decision.
 

21 June 2007 - police - Smacking guidelines too restrictive

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4103124a11.html

Smacking guidelines too restrictive - police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007

New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.


The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.

A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.

But association president Greg O'Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.

"The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given," he told the New Zealand Herald.

There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.

There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.

Mr O'Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. "And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad."

A group opposing the smacking bill - Family First - yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.

Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.

"This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted," Mr McCoskrie said.

The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.

National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.
 

20 June 2007- Waikato Times - Father hits out at 'vague' new smacking guidelines

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikatotimes/4102035a6579.html
Father hits out at 'vague' new smacking guidelines
By NATALIE AKOORIE and THE DOMINION POST - Waikato Times | Wednesday, 20 June 2007


A Hamilton father of five who plans to continue smacking his children in spite of a controversial law banning physical punishment says the police prosecution guidelines are too vague.

Neil Pascoe, whose children range in age from two to 23, said it was "totally ridiculous" that parents who regularly smacked their children despite warnings faced prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under the law, which comes into effect on Friday.

"How can they prove it?" he said. "They're not there at the time - they didn't see what went on . . . unless there is bruising - but if there is, or scarring, that then becomes abuse."

Under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday, even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence co-ordinators.

The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of a law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children.

It was passed after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute "inconsequential" smacking.

Though that is recognised in the guidelines, "inconsequential" is not defined, with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.

The advice goes on to say that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is "repetitive and frequent" and previous warnings have been ignored. Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYF.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents.

Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police "some context".
 

20 June 2007 - New Zealand National Party - National will fix smacking law if it's broken

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0706/S00380.htm

National will fix smacking law if it's broken

Wednesday, 20 June 2007, 10:05 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
John Key MP
National Party Leader
20 June 2007

National will fix smacking law if it's broken

National Party Leader John Key says a National-led Government will change the smacking law if the spirit of the compromise thrashed out with Labour is broken.

"We're watching the developments. National has maintained right the way through the process that we do not wish to see responsible parents criminalised. If that starts happening, a National Government would fix the law.


"The critical test of this legislation was always going to be the way it was administered.

"But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required. If, for whatever reason, that proves not to be the case, we'll change it.

"The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for an 'inconsequential' smack. That's what National signed up to, and that's still the case."

ENDS
 

20 June 2007 - Family First - Regular smackers may face charges

Regular smackers may face charges

The Dominion Post 20 June 2007

Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment. Even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday. The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of the law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children. The law comes into force on Friday.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents. "Who's going to be the lucky test case parents who have to go through the hell of a prosecution? If the police are saying 'we're not sure', how in the heck are parents going to be certain that they're parenting within the law?"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4100946a10.html

Police issue smacking law guide and question definitions
NZ Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10446785

READ The Police Practive Guide for New Section 59
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html

Family First's Response...

Police Practice Guide for Smacking Law Confirms Worst Fears for Parents
Family First MEDIA RELEASE
19 JUNE 2007

The Police have confirmed that they will prosecute parents who lightly smack their children, even if the smacking is inconsequential.

In the Police Practice Guide released by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope today, it states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”

“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This flies in the face of assurances given by Helen Clark and John Key.”

The Police Practice guide also acknowledges the confusing nature of the new law in its introduction by stating that "until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law.”

“If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The Practice Guide also confirms that the Police will be keeping records of all complaints – even those of a minor, trivial or inconsequential nature.”

“It is interesting to note that the Police, in the absence of clear definitions in the law of who is a “child” and what constitutes “reasonable force” will be forced to make subjective decisions based on the age and maturity of the child and the circumstances that led to the use of force. In other words, and ironically, we’re back to the original section 59.”

“The politicians have delivered a ‘feel-good’ law change to the Police with no substance or certainty for parents, and some poor family is going to be the ‘test case’ of a law which, according to a recent poll, 78% of NZ’ers will ignore and 77% say it will have no effect on child abuse.”
 

17 June 2007 - Family First - 78% Will Break New Smacking Law Coming Into Force This Week

MEDIA RELEASE
17 JUNE 2007

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00214.htm

Smacking Law Rejected by Majority of NZ’ers – 78% Will Ignore the Law

Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.

These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.

29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.

“This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

82% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law.

When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know.

78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.

“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”

When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely.

“This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”

“The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.”

As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.

“Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.

The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

Read Full Report - http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Smacking%20Poll%20June%202007%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf

ENDS


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

8 June 2007 - The Age - Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Smacking-kids-should-not-be-outlawed-PM/2007/06/08/1181089286214.html

Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM

June 8, 2007 - 11:19AM

Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn't want the practice outlawed.

Mr Howard said he did not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.

After an anti-smacking law was passed in New Zealand last month, the Australian Democrats called for the federal government to protect children from physical punishment.

A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.

Asked if he smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: "No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.

"We were not into, sort of, physical discipline," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

"That's us. I'm not telling other parents how to run their lives."

The prime minister said disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.

"I do not believe the law should be changed.

"There are laws at the moment which punish people who abuse children.

"But reasonable discipline is not abuse. Can't we just have a commonsense approach to these things?"
 

31 May 2007 - Family Integrity - Swedish Academic Slams National MP

Media Release
For Immediate Distribution


Swedish Academic Slams National MP for Cowardly Attack in Parliament Jacob Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus and Family Law at the University of Stockholm, and author ("Family Law under change") has written to National MP Katherine Rich complaining about her cowardly and unsubstantiated attack on Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson who recently visited NZ.

In Rich's speech in parliament recently supporting Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill against the weight of public opinion, Rich slammed Harrold-Claesson as a 'fruit loop' and 'false expert', all said behind the cowardly protection of parliamentary privilege.

However, Professor Sundberg rejects Rich's attack stating that she has "fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm."

Sundberg also slams Katherine Rich's understanding and support of the Swedish experiment with smacking bans and says "Whether Sweden "benefited" from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation."

Katherine Rich should do her homework before making baseless and defamatory attacks against individuals, especially in the cowardly way she did behind the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Letter from Sundberg to Kathryn Rich:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/letter-to-kathryn-rich-from-jacob-wf.html

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Chil
dren_Goodbye_7.pdf
 

28 MAY 2007 - Family First - Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency

MEDIA RELEASE
28 MAY 2007

Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency

The Prime Minister, in her response to calls to lower the alcohol limit for driving, has said what many parents and family groups argued should be the approach to the anti-smacking bill.

In response to a question this morning on Newstalk ZB as to why won’t the government consider lowering the alcohol limit on drink driving, the PM’s response was

“…I am highly conscious of not drinking before driving. I think most people are. And the question you have to ask is are you then going to bring in a rule that fundamentally changes it for highly law abiding people when the problem is with those who drink far too much.”



We agree.



Kiwi parents would agree.

“This was the exact argument used by Family First regarding the anti-smacking bill, which has effectively targeted law abiding parents, while ignoring the root causes of child abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “Why was the PM’s logic not used in the smacking debate?”

“As a result of shoddy and undemocratic lawmaking, ‘highly law abiding parents’ are now going to be criminalised, and threatened with investigation and intervention by CYF, because of a ‘fundamental’ law change that has no scientific support or international experience backing it up.”

“If we are serious about reducing our abysmal rate of child abuse, the target should be parents who physically and emotionally abuse their children or neglect their needs – a far cry from a smack on the bottom by a loving parent.”

“The Prime Minister should be consistent in her approach to law making,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

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

17 May 2007 - Commissioner For Children - Commissioner wants more integrated investment

We need to be watching for this very dangerous legislation which leads on from the Amendment of Section 59

Commissioner wants more integrated investment
Thursday, 17 May 2007, 6:12 pm
Press Release: Commissioner For Children

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00338.htm


Media Release
17 May 2007

Children’s Commissioner wants more integrated investment in children

Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro congratulates all those politicians who voted to pass the Crimes Amendment Bill (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill and sent a strong and united message that is consistent with a legislative and policy context that prioritises a whole child approach and working towards improved outcomes for children.


"We now need to support this direction towards a better future with monatory policies that support this,” says Dr Kiro.

“Today’s budget does contain some good initiatives for children although its focus is somewhat ad-hoc and not as coherent as the provisions for older people. There should be a clear strategy underpinning investment in children.”

“It is good to see investment in education and better health outcomes for children and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with government to deliver services that support children and families”

“New Zealand children should grow up in a safe and secure family environment, free from all forms of violence. Additional funding of $11.2 million towards programmes to reduce family violence is money well spent.”

“I would like to see more investment in preventing youth offending. Ensuring that children are safe and nurtured, have the resources to develop to their full potential, and have their views considered in matters that affect them, is a fundamental responsibility of governments and communities and families. It also makes good sense, as it will lead to a better future for all of us. Investments in childhood are most likely to bring good returns to society as a whole. The best results occur when we intervene early in the child’s life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater.”

I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential,” says Dr Kiro.