Join Us

New form

MEDIA RELEASE
22 November 2007

Key Must Commit to Protecting Good Families From Bad Smacking Law

Family First NZ is calling on National leader John Key to commit to changing the anti-smacking law after a father was the first parent convicted of assault for smacking his 8-year old on the bottom.

“John Key said that the law should not criminalise good parents for lightly smacking their children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Here we have a young family, an expectant mother, a father attempting to do his very best, and a law which treats him as a criminal rather than a system that offers the support, encouragement and resources they may need.”

“While community organisations working with at-risk families and Plunket are driven to their knees because of a lack of adequate funding, there seems to be no shortage of resources in investigating good parents who use a light smack.”

Family First has highlighted five cases already where CYF and Police have conducted intensive investigations of families simply because of supposed ‘abuse’, including a grandmother interviewed by police for smacking a swearing granddaughter in a Warehouse store, three police appearing on the doorstep of a home where a 2 year old was having a bedtime tantrum, and a mother dobbed into CYF by the local school.

There are similar cases being notified to Family First NZ on a weekly basis.

“And many parents are confirming that children are telling them “you can’t touch me or I’ll tell the police’”

“We are creating a ‘paranoid parenting’ environment,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“This case has confirmed kiwi parents’ worst nightmare. This law will target good parents while child abuse continues at the same rate, and the real causes of family breakdown and stress, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and other significant issues are ignored.”

“The predictions made by the many community groups and 83% of NZ’ers opposing this law have, unfortunately, proved true.”

ENDS

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

22 November 2007 - The Dominion Post - Three smacks and he's 'guilty'

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4283366a10.html

Three smacks and he's 'guilty'
By TANYA KATTERNS - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 22 November 2007

A father who spanked his eight-year-old son on the bottom three times for misbehaving at school is one of the first to be convicted of assault under the law against smacking.

The Masterton man was sentenced to nine months' supervision yesterday after admitting he had grabbed his son by the shoulder, held him on his knee and hit him with an open hand.

Green MP Sue Bradford has welcomed the conviction, saying the case is a good example of the May law change working as intended.

The controversial legislation removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

But opponents say the conviction is a disgrace.

Family First national director Bob McCroskrie said parents had every reason to be concerned.

"It's the first of what's going to be many cases of the law targeting good parents. Our predictions have come true."

Masterton District Court judge Anthony Walsh told the man, whose wife is expecting their fourth child: "While you may have gotten away with this in the past, it is a case of not now."

The father, 33, who has name suppression to protect his son's identity, smacked his son on October 29. He had returned home from work to hear that his son had caused some problems at school.

The boy was in his bedroom and his father decided to confront him about his behaviour, the court was told.

Becoming frustrated, the father grabbed his son's clothes at the shoulder and pulled him on to the bed.

The father then flipped the boy over his knee and smacked him three times on the bottom with an open palm, before roughly sitting him back up.

The eight-year-old had bruising to his shoulder, the court was told.

The boy's mother, pregnant with the couple's fourth child, is understood to have taken a photograph of the bruise and shown it to a relative, who told police several days later.

The father admitted he had lost his temper. He refused to comment as he left court.

Judge Walsh, hearing the case in Masterton's newly established domestic violence court, said the smacking law change had redefined the way old attitudes toward disciplining children were viewed.

"Our law was recently amended to make it clear that children should be protected. There are other ways that must be taken to discipline children, short of violence, and that means time out and loss of privileges."

Judge Walsh told the father: "A lot of us are parents, we know children can be challenging - but we are the adults."

The father, who pleaded guilty to assault, and his wife had already sought help with anger management, parenting skills and relationship counselling before yesterday's sentencing.

He was sentenced to nine months' supervision - which means the state will now pay for the counselling.

The law took effect in June, after National inserted a clause stating police should not prosecute inconsequential smacking, though guidelines for officers do not define "inconsequential".

Police were told by their bosses that it would be a matter for the courts to determine in test cases.

Ms Bradford said she was pleased the case had been prosecuted.

"Hitting a child is an assault and there is no longer the protection that there used to be where a case like this would never go before the courts."

Police national headquarters had no figures on smacking-related convictions since June. A report is being prepared.
 

19 November 2007 - The Dominion Post - Hands off our lives say voters

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4278853a10.html

Hands off our lives say voters
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Monday, 19 November 2007

Voters fear Government is exerting too much control over their lives - and they believe it has got worse in the past two years.

The finding in the latest Fairfax Media-Nielsen poll suggests the backlash over the so-called anti-smacking bill has left its mark, but could also be a response to the campaign against Labour's bid to overhaul electoral finance laws with a regime criticised as draconian and a limit on free speech.

Two thousand people protested in Auckland at the weekend against the Electoral Finance Bill, due to be reported back to Parliament today after being watered down by a select committee.

In a poll of 1082 voters, people were asked whether the Government had more control over people's daily lives than they would like and 57 per cent answered yes. A further 37 per cent of voters rejected the proposition and 6 per cent did not know.

When asked whether the level of control had increased, decreased or stayed the same over the last two years, 61 per cent said it had increased, which points to the smacking debate as a major factor.

Civil unions, Labour's push to decriminalise prostitution and even sensitivity over the recent police raids may be other factors.

Labour has come under concerted attack from National and conservative Christian groups for running a "nanny state" agenda.

Family Party co-leader Richard Lewis said the Labour Government had continued to ram through unpopular policies.

"The message I've been getting for some time now is that the Government has been stepping into areas they shouldn't be when it comes to parental responsibility and the balance of rights of New Zealanders," he said.

Labour's backing for the smacking legislation - which removes the defence of reasonable force for parents facing child abuse charges - sparked one of its biggest declines in popularity since it got into government.

The latest poll shows Labour back on the path to recovery, with 40 per cent support, just 5 points behind National. But it suggests some concerns about government interference have stuck.

Six months on from the introduction of the new smacking laws, however, those working at the coalface say fears that sparked the backlash have proved unfounded.

Police are due to release a major review of the change within weeks, but family law and child welfare experts say there has been no noticeable change to the way child violence is being reported.

There have been just two media reports of possible cases of parents being reported for smacking, with no action taken, while Child, Youth and Family reports there has been no significant rise in child abuse notifications since the law change....
 

16 November 2007 - The Family Party - Anti Smacking Law Poses Significant Risks

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00277.htm

Anti Smacking Law Poses Significant Risks
Friday, 16 November 2007, 11:07 am
Press Release: The Family Party

Richard Lewis, Leader of THE FAMILY PARTY, says a recent report from the Ministry of Social Development that there has not been a “huge increase in numbers of notifications,” since the law was passed in May, is no reflection of the ever-present danger the law poses to New Zealand families.

“The government is hardly in a position to make credible statements on the affects of a law they rammed through parliament despite overwhelming public opposition. What we do know is that the law has not stopped incidents of abuse in the home. And we also know the law exposes decent, law-abiding parents to significant risk of unwarranted state intervention” says Mr Lewis.

The anti smacking bill’s architect, Sue Bradford, says a public smack could be a sign of bigger problems occurring behind closed doors. A NZPA report quotes Ms Bradford as saying, “while on the surface it might appear like a simple smack…what we don’t know is what else is happening in that family with that child, or other children, or the mother or some other family member.”

Mr Lewis says Ms Bradford’s statement reveals the true intent of the law, which is to gain unlimited access into the homes of New Zealand families.

“This really is another example of state intrusion of the worst kind. Sure, there are legitimate cases of abuse that we are all concerned about. But the police and government departments were already adequately empowered to deal with such cases under the Crimes Act. Bradford’s law gives the state unlimited power to enter a home and scrutinize the lives of decent, law-abiding parents, which is inherently unjust and abusive,” he added.

Mr Lewis says The Family Party aims to protect the rights and responsibilities of parents.

ENDS
 

9 November 2007 - Family First Disgusted with Ministry of Education Over Sex Abuse

MEDIA RELEASE
9 November 2007

Family First Disgusted with Ministry of Education Over Sex Abuse

Family First is shocked and disgusted with the actions of the Ministry of Education who knew about allegations of sexual abuse at Hato Paora College but did not instruct the school to contact police.

“It is quite incredible that schools will rush to CYF to report a hand-smack yet are willing to hide a far more serious case of sexual abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Both the Ministry and the Board of Trustees failed to contact the police despite the serious nature of these allegations. Any complaint of this type should be referred automatically to the police so that they can undertake their own investigation.”

“For a government ministry to hide this information shows just how confused they are in determining real abuse versus the role of parents and reasonable parental correction.”

This case follows other cases of government inaction in dealing with the real causes and cases of child abuse.

The Government admitted last year that it was powerless to intervene after it was revealed that teachers with a history of drugs, violence and sex offences had been allowed back into the classroom.

In July, it was revealed that a teacher convicted of sexually molesting a nine-year-old boy had been supported by his union when he was stood down from an earlier job for looking at child porn, and an art teacher who posted hard-core pornographic pictures of himself and two women on internet sex sites - with messages for girls "the younger the better" to contact him - had been allowed to continue teaching.

The Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) tried to keep the case secret, and the Teachers Council would not reveal the teacher's name.

“It’s time the government and its departments figured out the real meaning of abuse, and started targeting it with full resources and an automatic referral to the police,” says Mr McCoskrie. “They are protecting ‘their own’ yet have no problem dobbing in good parents.”

ENDS

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

30 October - Citizens Commission on Human Rights - New Psychological Testing of Children is Abusive

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00389.htm

New Psychological Testing of Children is Abusive

Sunday, 28 October 2007, 1:38 pm
Press Release: Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Citizens Commission On Human Rights New Zealand Established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights

New Psychological Testing of Children is Abusive

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights are warning people about behavioural screening programmes for children and the use of drugs for learning disorders in an exhibition now on.

Commission director, Mr Steve Green is concerned about the new “b4 school checks” pilot programme currently being advertised by the Counties Manukau District Health Board because of their psychological screening component for four-year-olds.

“People are not aware that these psychological screening programmes are not based on medicine and the assessments often lead to treatment of fictitious mental disorders,” Mr Green said.

The Commission said that the psychological testing of four-year-old for behavioural problems to be used by the “b4 school check” programme is a five-minute checklist a parent fills out.

Such tests, the Commission claims, are unscientific as they claim that a small child who cannot stay still for long and who fidgets is abnormal.

The Goodman Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire is the one being used in the “b4 school check” for psychological and behavioural problems and its results can be wildly out with over 50% of children apparently abnormal, the Commission claims.

The Commission fully supports the actual health checks for the “b4 school checks” but says the psychological testing stigmatizes children with mental disorders that in reality do not exist.

“These labels stay with a person for ever and most people are not aware that mental disorders are voted into being by a panel of psychiatrists at a convention. There are no scientific or medical tests that support mental illness or disorders,” said Mr Green.

He also said that psychiatry has no test for normal behaviour and so the abnormal can be cultural and language differences which are not taken into account.

Ends
 

30 October - Office of the Children's Commissioner - Children's Commissioner backs charter

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00389.htm

Children's Commissioner backs charter
Tuesday, 30 October 2007, 11:36 am
Press Release: Office of the Children's Commissioner


Children's Commissioner backs charter for children and young people in care

As a champion for the rights of every child and young person in New Zealand, Children's Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro supports the charter for children and young people in care, launched by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) today.

"The development of this charter and its implementation plan shows Child, Youth and Family's commitment to ensuring that children and young peoples' rights are promoted and protected while they are in care.

"My office has heard directly from children and young people in care that they want a pamphlet on their rights and they want to know who to talk with if they have concerns or complaints.

"Four young people spoke at the Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, hosted by my office in February last year (2006). When asked what children and young people in care need in order to blossom, they identified four important areas that required attention. These are: stigma, rights, resilience and stability.

"One of the speakers pointed out that the care system is there to protect them from others, not others from them.

"Being placed in care can be an extremely traumatic time for children and young people. I support them in their desire to have up-to-date information about their rights and about what to do if they are not happy with their situation. It is important that we listen when children and young people voice their opinions and that they can see the powerful effect they can have on policy and practice when they do.

"I believe it is important that all children and young people in New Zealand are aware that they have individual rights, as per the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).

"I commend CYF on its implementation plan that allows for all children and young people to receive a copy of the charter as they come into care; for those already in care to have a meeting with their social worker to explain what the charter means to them; and for all caregivers to be made aware of the charter as well. I believe this process will be valuable in developing a relationship of trust that children and young people in care must have with their social worker.

"We are keen to see the charter work in tandem with a youth-friendly complaints process.

"We would also like to see the charter embodied in the legislation to give it even more strength to ensure children and young people in care enjoy good health, education, safety and adequate resources and opportunities to develop to their full potential."

ends
 

28 October 2007 - tvnz - Mother angered by anti-smacking law

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1418227

Mother angered by anti-smacking law
Oct 28, 2007 9:48 AM

A mother is speaking out about her family's fear of being pulled apart thanks to the anti-smacking laws.

The woman, who wants to remain anonymous, has written a letter about her experiences to lobby group Family First.

She claims she was approached by CYF after her child's school dobbed her in for smacking.

The woman says a teacher had been questioning the child about their home life, after an incident involving a classmate.

Family First Director Bob McCoskrie says it's the kind of thing every parent fears from the anti smacking law, but says it's not the only time the woman's felt the effects of anti-smacking law.

He says she had previously given the boy a smack to get the boy off the trampoline and police arrived in 20 minutes saying a complaint had been laid.

McCoskrie says the incident was then referred to a foster care agency who contacted the woman.

He says no one wants to come to CYF's attention, and it's also a worry the school didn't talk to the parents first.

McCoskrie says the law needs to be clearer so families who really need help can get it.
 

28 October 2007 - Stuff - School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4253352a10.html

School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
By RUTH LAUGESEN - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 28 October 2007

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.


"I don't want to feel like a child abuser, and I don't want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son," she said. "It's brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress."

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

In the first incident, she came home one day in the July school holidays to find a card left by Child, Youth and Family asking her to contact a care and protection officer.

The officer told her the agency had received a complaint from the school after her son had hit another child with a ball. When asked why, the boy told the teacher he had been smacked that morning.

The mother of four said she had smacked him on the hand after he had "thrown a wobbly" instead of getting ready for school. The smack had left no mark.

She said hers was "just an average Kiwi family". Both parents worked, did not smoke or drink or "have any addictions". They smacked rarely, preferring to use time out. She said the care and protection officer had decided not to take the matter any further.

The school was unrepentant when her husband questioned its handling of the matter.

In the second incident, in September, three police officers arrived at her house after she smacked her child outside, and a neighbour complained. The police questioned her and the child separately before deciding not to take the matter any further.

A friend who was at the house at the time, Gabrielle Allen, said the arrival of police was astonishing and intimidating.

"My friend is loud, there's a lot of volume. She's just excitable. I think she's a great mum, and she really loves her children. She's consistent but she's not over the top with discipline at all."


The mother then contacted Family First, a lobby group that vociferously opposed smacking law changes passed in June. The organisation put her in touch with the Sunday Star-Times.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill, "not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level".


Family First spokesman Bob McCroskrie said parents now feared the law, and Child, Youth and Family.

A spokeswoman for Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson said the minister did not believe the CYFs intervention was a result of the June law change, but reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse.

The Education Ministry said schools had not been given any fresh instructions about reporting smacking since the legislation came in.
 

26 October 2007 - dailymail.co.uk - Government u-turn as ministers tell parents they CAN smack their children

Government u-turn as ministers tell parents they CAN smack their children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489636&in_page_id=1770

UK Report
25th October 2007

Smacking ok:

The government will not ban parents smacking their children

Ministers ruled out a complete ban on smacking today after a Government review found the majority of parents opposed such a move.

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan said the law would stay as it is after officials reviewed the way new rules were working.

Despite calls from many organisations for a ban, Mr Brennan said the evidence was that fewer parents now use smacking to discipline their children.

In a statement to MPs, he said: "Whilst many parents say they will not smack, a majority of parents say that smacking should not be banned outright.

"The Government will retain the law in its current form, in the absence of evidence it is not working satisfactorily."

Mr Brennan's announcement came after the Government conducted a review of the law, which changed in the 2004 Children's Act.

Section 58 of the Act removed the the defence of reasonable punishment from parents and adults acting "in loco parentis" who are charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wounding or grievous bodily harm, or cruelty to a child.

At the time, ministers promised to review the law to assess whether it was working.

Officials surveyed parents, children and examined other evidence for the review, which took place this summer.....

But he continued: "Many organisations however support legislation to ban smacking.

"The police have discretion to deal with cases as they consider appropriate, taking into account factors including the evidence available, the public interest and the best interests of the child.

"The law is clear and section 58 has improved protection for children.

"But there appears to be a lack of awareness across different audiences about the scope and application of the law.

"In response, the Government will retain the law in its current form, in the absence of evidence it is not working satisfactorily.

"We will also do more to help with positive parenting."

Shadow children's minister Tim Loughton said: "This is a clear victory for common-sense.

"Clearly, if any adult is responsible for abuse and violence towards a child they need to face the full rigour of the law.

"But there is a world of difference between that and criminalising loving parents that use chastisement as they see fit in the interest of their child........


For full article and comments go to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489636&in_page_id=1770

Comments (20)
 

25 October - More Swedish Parents Smack Their Children

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/international/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?nyheter=1&programid=2054&Artikel=1673347

More Swedish Parents Smack Their Children

The number of Swedish parents admitting to hitting their children is growing, despite smacking being illegal here.

In a new study by Karlstad University 2.3% of parents say they physically punish their children, that’s more than double the figures from the last study from the year 2000.

Over 23% of parents say that they have shaken or pushed their children at some time over the past year. Staffan Janson, who was in charge of the study, says that he thinks that recent media coverage of parents needing to set boundaries for their kids has meant that some parents have gone too far.
 

25 October 2007 - Family First - Mallard Supported Anti-Smacking Bill – Should Resign

MEDIA RELEASE
25 October 2007

Mallard Supported Anti-Smacking Bill – Should Resign

Family First is calling on Labour MP Trevor Mallard to resign as a result of assaulting another MP.

“Not only has he set an atrocious example to our young people, but in May he voted for Sue Bradford’s bill to ban reasonable parental correction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Mr Mallard has seen fit to criminalise good parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction, yet has assaulted another MP. No reasonable force. Not for the purpose of correction. Simply a lack of control and discipline.”

“Mr Mallard can suggest that there were extenuating circumstances, but this same defence is not available to parents. Police discretion should not be available in an extreme case like this,” says Mr McCoskrie. “There was absolutely nothing reasonable in what he did.”

In the interests of maintaining the integrity and standard of political leadership, Mr Mallard should accept the standards imposed on all other New Zealand’s and resign.

ENDS

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

24 October 2007 - Family First - Smacking Law Affecting Good Families

Smacking Law Affecting Good Families
Family First is starting to be contacted by families who are being affected by Sue Bradford's anti-smacking law. These cases are heartbreaking and are proving that the law is ineffective, having no effect on rates of child abuse or child abuse deaths, and is penalising good parents.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE NEW ANTI-SMACKING LAWS (or you know of other families who have), PLEASE CONTACT Family First AS SOON AS POSSIBLE bob@familyfirst.org.nz

Family First will be releasing to the media examples of good parents being targeted by CYF, schools and police. Please contact Family First in the strictest confidence.

Please also join us in the "Great NZ Table Challenge" as we seek to gain the remaining 90,000 signatures required for a National Referendum on Child Abuse and Parental Correction.

Family First NZ is joining with a new group Unity for Liberty and other groups in inviting all concerned New Zealanders across the country to 'take up arms' - that means pens, tables and petition forms!

When : The Month of November (Saturdays, if you can do more days even better)
Where : The length and breadth of New Zealand
Why : To achieve the 300,000 signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum (already 210,000 collected)
How : By being available in your own communities for NZ'ers to sign the petition. Ring up a local shop and ask to run a table outside their business on a Saturday or for a few days. Perhaps a sports field - mid-week touch - flower shows - Expos - wherever there's a crowd (the possibilities are endless!)

CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/sign_the_petitions.html

LET'S FINISH WHAT WE STARTED
 

20 October - Daily Mail - Toddlers allowed to run wild risk being violent adults, parents told

Toddlers allowed to run wild risk being violent adults, parents told
Daily Mail 20th October 2007

Curbing aggression in children in their pre-school years is the key to ensuring they do not grow into violent adults, parents are being warned. Toddlers do not learn aggression from other children, TV, video games or adults, says a leading child psychiatrist. Instead, most are naturally physically belligerent, claims Professor Richard Tremblay, from the University of Montreal.

He says children reach their peak of aggressive behaviour between 18 and 42 months. If parents fail to intervene at this stage, it could make the difference between a child growing up normally or turning into a violent adult. There is even evidence that uncontrolled aggression in the first few years is linked to criminal and drug-taking behaviour as adults, said Professor Tremblay. Professor Tremblay - who is due to present his research at the Royal Society in London today, warned: "Learning how not to be violent - which mostly takes place during the pre- school years - is dependent on both genetic and environmental factors." READ MORE HERE: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/media_centre/recent_news/news/toddlers_allowed_to_run_wild_risk_being_violent_adults.html

Family First Comment : But didn't Bradford, Clark and Kiro tell us that it was smacking, smacking and smacking that led to violent kids??? Perhaps a 'reasonable' smack is just what is needed! Yet more proof that the ban on smacking was ideologically driven rather than based on solid evidence and research.
 

23 October 2007 - NZPA - Summit to combat Maori child abuse

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4247015a8153.html

Summit to combat Maori child abuse
NZPA | Tuesday, 23 October 2007

ABUSE SUMMIT: Anglican minister Hone Kaa says Maori should take responsibility for child abuse in their community, and is organising a hui to address the problem.

The death of Maori children at the hands of their parents and caregivers is genocide, Anglican minister Hone Kaa says.

He yesterday announced a summit would be held in Auckland in November to tackle the issue of Maori child abuse.

He has invited Maori from the Waikato, Auckland and Northland to the summit.

The summit will be called Nga Mana Ririki, which means the Power of the Little Ones.

"Tamariki Maori are more likely to be abused and killed by their whanau than any other group in the country. It is time to stop this genocide."

Dr Kaa said there had been much public discussion, but very little action, over the reasons why Maori child abuse rates were so high.

Ministry for Social Development figures show Maori children are almost twice as likely than non-Maori children to be assessed as abused or neglected. In 2003, the rate per 1000 was 11.9 for Maori and 5.9 for non-Maori.

Dr Kaa said it was time for Maori to take responsibility for the issue and develop solutions that worked.

The hui would be by invitation. Participants would hear from a range of Maori experts, and then draw up a strategic plan.

"It's an ambitious project but I am absolutely confident in the ability of the Maori we are calling together. We converted from internecine warfare and cannibalism little more than a century ago, so I am sure we can stop abusing and killing our children."

Project manager Anton Blank pointed to the Smokefree campaign as an existing template for this type of project.

"Sustained communications and branding combined with community action and intervention services have resulted in a reduction of Maori smoking rates. We can do the same with Maori child abuse," Mr Blank said.

The summit will open with a memorial service on November 25, and will run until November 28. The service, which is open to everyone, will be held at the Holy Sepulchre Church on Auckland's Khyber Pass Rd.

Dr Kaa said politicians and decision makers would be invited to the last day of the summit, to review the plan and discuss how they might support Nga Mana Ririki.
 

10 October 2007 - Family First - PM Should Call for End to Death Penalty of Unborn Child

MEDIA RELEASE
10 October 2007

PM Should Call for End to Death Penalty of Unborn Child

Family First is calling on the Prime Minister to be consistent, and call for the end of the death penalty to both adults and the unborn child.

In joining Amnesty International's call today to end the death penalty worldwide, the Prime Minister said "The death penalty violates the right to life and is by definition and in practice, a cruel and degrading treatment. It is known to have been inflicted on the innocent. It's very nature means it cannot be reversed."

Family First agrees, and therefore calls on her government to immediately change the law which allows the death penalty being inflicted on the unborn child because of the abuse of the 'mental health' exemption clause in the existing legislation.

"It is ironic that during the smacking debate, the PM argued that children should enjoy the same protection as adults - yet has conveniently forgotten this principle in relation to the unborn child," says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"It is also hypocritical of Amnesty International to call for the end of the death penalty despite its recent decision to support abortion as a human right. They have no credibility on this matter anymore."

"Family First awaits the Prime Minister's amendment to the current abortion laws which allow, on average, 18,000 unborn children to be aborted every year."

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
 

Poll

Do you think that tougher penalties should be introduced for young offenders who commit serious crimes?

See story: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4220854a10.html

Yes (2968 votes, 95.4%)
No (144 votes, 4.6%)

Stuff polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate.

It is not tougher penalties that should be introduced for young offenders who commit serious crimes. We need to be training the parents on how to raise up their children so that they do not commit minor or serious crimes.

We do not need the State interferring more in families.
We need to give the parents the tools to train and correct their children as necessary.
 

1 October 2007 - The Dominion Post - Police 'powerless to act' on child crims

"The reality is 15- and 16-year-olds don't suddenly become violent," Mr O'Connor said.

NZ First MP Ron Mark has drafted a bill that would lower the age of prosecution from 14 to 12, and introduce tougher penalties for young offenders who commit serious crimes.

We don't need to lower the age of prosecution from 14 to 12 we just need to give parents the OK to discipline and correct their children. This is years of PC gone wrong where NGOs have been telling parents not to use reasonable force to correct their children. We are seeing the results and these results will be multiplied now that Section 59 has been amended.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4220854a10.html

Police 'powerless to act' on child crims
By EMILY WATT - The Dominion Post | Monday, 1 October 2007

Children too young to be prosecuted have been implicated in more than 8500 crimes in one year, and police say they are often powerless to intervene.


Officers say there is little they can do in the cases, such as a 10- year-old who attacked classmates with a piece of timber, two 12-year-olds with 33 burglary charges, and a 13-year-old who attacked police with a baseball bat.

One Lower Hutt 13-year-old in social welfare care for sexual offences abused two-year-olds four more times while in care, with police unable to act.

Police usually rely on care and protection orders to intervene with troubled children through the Family Court, but officers say this can be difficult when many of them come from working two-parent families where Child, Youth and Family is unlikely to become involved.

Justice Ministry statistics show police apprehended 700 children aged under 10 and 7900 children aged 10 to 13 last year for crimes including violence, drugs and burglary. Property offences were the most common crimes committed..

Police say anecdotal evidence suggests young people are offending younger and more violently. By the time police are able to intervene, when the child turns 14, the behaviour is often entrenched.

Children under 14 can only be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

NZ First MP Ron Mark has drafted a bill that would lower the age of prosecution from 14 to 12, and introduce tougher penalties for young offenders who commit serious crimes.

Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft and Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro have criticised the bill.

Police say they do not want to criminalise young people, but lowering the age of criminal responsibility would allow police to intervene and offer the help they need - before they became hardened criminals.

Police Association president Greg O'Connor said police also wanted the Youth Court empowered to better deal with these young people quickly and more effectively.

Lower Hutt Youth Aid Sergeant Steve O'Connor said most children who misbehaved were dealt with effectively by parents and schools. But the small group of serious or recidivist offenders were slipping through the cracks.

Some of the behaviours seen by young children were "quite frightening", including taking knives to school and assaulting other children.

Youth offending figures were "overwhelmingly under-reported", because many police simply took the children home without documenting the incident. But if young offenders were not dealt with, they would go on to further crime.

"The reality is 15- and 16-year-olds don't suddenly become violent," Mr O'Connor said.

Mr Mark said the Justice Ministry statistics were further proof the age of prosecution should be lowered. "In four years' time they will be the graduates of the failing youth justice system, and they will become the very adults that people are bleating about being in our jails."

Mr Mark's bill is being examined by a select committee.
 

29 September 2007 - The Press - Anti-social behaviour plan could target three-year-olds

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4218792a11.html

Anti-social behaviour plan could target three-year-olds
By ARWEN HANN - The Press | Saturday, 29 September 2007

Plans to screen and treat children as young as three are part of new Government plans to cut anti-social behaviour.

The six-year multi-agency plan has been developed by the ministries of education, health and social development and is designed to increase the number of children getting help for severe anti-social behaviour and conduct disorder.

It is estimated that up to 5 per cent of primary and intermediate pupils have problems with conduct or display severe anti-social behaviour.

The report said it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of intervention services.

However, it said "key challenges" had been identified, including "inadequate and inconsistent mechanisms for identifying and determining eligibility for services for young people" and "gaps in the availability of specialist services".

The plan proposes developing systematic screening for three to seven-year-olds within the education sector.

Treatment plans would include parenting classes and education for teachers on how to deal with disruptive children, as well as a "behaviour change programme" for the child.

A referral for mental health treatment could be included.

The foreword, signed by Education Minister Steve Maharey, Health Minister Pete Hodgson and Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson, said behaviour problems were the "single most important predictor of later chronic anti-social behaviour problems, including poor mental health, academic underachievement, early school-leaving, teenage parenthood, delinquency, unemployment and substance abuse".

Canterbury University College of Education senior lecturer John Church, who contributed to the report, said early intervention was more likely to succeed.

"The critical element is parental involvement and the thing about working with young kids is most parents want the best for their kids," he said. "When their children are three or four, most parents will come on board. By age 12 or 13, the parents usually want out because they have been worn down."

It was also more cost-effective. "It is possible to have a little parenting training, which is a good influence on the children for about $4000 per case at the age of five to six," he said.

Church said that by the age of four it was possible to distinguish between children who were a little badly behaved and those with severe problems.

He said he would also like to see teachers given more training to identify children with severe behavioural problems.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie said the Government needed to back up its words with actions. `There are plenty of organisations out there who are working with these people and know them and what they are looking for."

He said he had similar concerns about the plan to those he had had about Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro's plan to screen all families for signs of abuse. "We need to be targeting that percentage of high-risk families we know about rather than trying to criminalise all families."

The New Zealand Educational Institute said it supported inter-agency plans because the onus for dealing with anti-social behaviour should not fall just on teachers.
 

nzherald - Is it time to bring back the cane?

Teachers protest at school violence
5:00AM Tuesday September 25, 2007
By Derek Cheng

Schools are becoming increasingly violent.

Your Views
Is it time to bring back the cane?
Send us Your Views
http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/feedback/yourviews/index.cfm?objectid=10465769

It is a daily struggle for teacher Judy Firkins to manage her 5- and 6-year-old children at Jean Batten School in Mangere.

She has been punched, been struck by objects thrown at her and had to restrain children attacking other pupils in her decile 1 classroom.

"How much more stress do we have to cope with and how resilient does a teacher have to be before we get practical help with these students?" she said in a passionate address to the New Zealand Educational Institute annual meeting in Wellington yesterday.

"As a senior, experienced teacher, these children are demoralising and destroying my enthusiasm to provide an exciting and vibrant programme."

Mrs Firkins, who has been teaching for 35 years, told the Herald she had taken several blows from one boy while trying to protect other pupils.

"He just fisticuffed me and I ended up with bruises on my chest," she said.

"I have one child in the class ... I cannot physically handle him. I think he's learned that the way to cope with anger is violence, and I get worried about the safety of my children and myself in this vulnerable situation.

"And you're just wasting so much valuable teaching time."

Mrs Firkins was one of several teachers at the meeting to express deep concerns over the impact of increasingly aggressive children.

They spoke about how disruption - including physical and verbal attacks from children as young as 2 - was eroding classroom safety and the quality of education.

A New Zealand Educational Institute report based on a survey at the end of last year found that one in seven primary school teachers had been hit by students last year, and 58 per cent reported "aggressive verbalconfrontations" with students.

Dealing with it came at a high personal cost to many teachers, who have to cope with emotional stress, physical injuries and sapping conditions.

"This has become a norm: you can expect to walk into your room every day and know someone is going to make your life hell," said Tauranga teacher Graham Woodhead, who teaches 10- and 11-year-olds.

Early childhood education teacher Diane Lawrence said: "It doesn't only happen in [primary] schools, it starts well before then - the throwing of chairs, the biting, the hitting, the verbal stuff [from 3- or 4-year-olds] and younger. There has been a huge increase in the time since I've been teaching [1981]."

Union members at the meeting backed the institute's report, which endorsed a wider community and Government response to a problem that had its roots outside the classroom.

"We have to change the way people behave, we have to change the way people think, stop these kids from thinking it's okay to behave like that," said the institute's national vice-president, Frances Nelson.

She said the institute would now seek feedback from community groups and the Government on how to address the problem.
 

Stuff - Those WOFs for kids and parents

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/auckland/4204954a22896.html

Those WOFs for kids and parents
By PAT BOOTH - Auckland | Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Strange but true - some great ideas which seem so simple are actually very complex.

That's a first reaction to the well-intentioned plan from Children's Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro for what amounts to regular Warrants of Fitness checks on children from birth to five.

A WOF, let's make it clear, not only of a child's health and well-being but also the fitness of parents to provide a stable and safe environment for them.

In the light of what we now know to be life around us you can't fault the intention.

She estimates that this move could save the lives of five children every year for the first five years alone.

That would cut in half the country's terrible record of killing its children.

The Kiro plan in its simplest definition: Regular and compulsory screening of every baby's home life.

She wants every newborn baby's parents or caregivers to nominate 'an authorised provider' (whatever that means) to assess their family's progress through home visits.

Under the Kiro rules, those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities who would set up an official monitoring process.

Cindy Kiro has been quoted as describing systems of 'voluntary engagement' with groups like Plunket as 'a recipe for disaster'.

She says her scheme, which she believes would cost about $5 million a year - a quote which sounds suspiciously low - has no equals anywhere. "We can lead the world in it."

Briefing papers for the plan are being written for the government's task force on family violence, which has launched a $14m campaign to fight domestic violence.

The campaign is apparently based on a 2005 report written by Auckland University researcher Janet Fanslow, who says home visits are one of the only proven methods to cut the child abuse rate.

The big doubt in my mind is just how feasible is it?

The logistics seem overwhelming.

The Health Ministry has had major, long-running problems setting up a national computer register of children's jabs - who and when.

In the Auckland region, the potential figures for the new WOF are daunting.

Samples from the 2006 census: More than 14,600 children four and under in Waitakere and more than 12,500 in North Shore city alone, a total of more than 6000 new babies each year in Waitakere, Shore and Rodney, for example.

These figures don't include statistics from the big baby-making suburbs in Manukau either.

How many staff would you need to register totals like this, then to identify and track them through those first five years?

How many trained specialists would the country need to keep up those regular and all-important visiting rosters?

Who would have the professional skills and personal abilities to see the signs of danger and to act on them?

How would ill-equipped and irresponsible parents respond?

How would capable and caring parents react to this regime?

How would welfare departments who have failed so often in the past lift their standards and their processes to cope?

And then, inevitably, there would be outcries from civil liberties and ethnic groups who would find human rights issues and/or cultural objections to what they would see as a Big Brother intrusion into so many private and blameless lives.

For me, if it could be made to work, I'd sooner that children's names are on computer files than on tombstones.
 

The Dominion Post - Child home-screening plan 'insult'

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4196025a20475.html

Child home-screening plan 'insult'
By DAVE BURGESS - | Monday, 10 September 2007

A proposal by Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro to have mandatory screening of every baby's home life is the ultimate insult, Family First NZ says.


The estimated $5-million-a-year scheme would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities.

The suggestion has outraged Bob McCoskrie, the national director of Christian-based lobby group Family First. "To threaten to refer the overwhelming majority of well-functioning parents and families - who will quite rightly resist this intrusion - to social welfare agencies is the ultimate insult."

Briefing papers are being written for presentation to the Government's task force for action on family violence, which began a $14 million campaign last week to fight domestic violence.

The proposal is in response to shocking child abuse statistics. Regular Unicef report cards, updated this year, consider New Zealand the most dangerous place for children, in terms of health and safety, out of 24 developed countries.

The Paediatric Society estimates 15 to 20 children are killed through child abuse each year.

Mr McCoskrie said the children's commissioner should concentrate on the problems that lead to child abuse, such as gang violence, methamphetamine use, violence in schools and the breakdown in families.

"But she wants to treat all parents as potential child abusers rather than affording them the respect, support and encouragement they deserve - while failing to target the real abusers."

National Party leader John Key said mandatory investigation of all children should be a last resort.

"A targeted approach would allow for more resources to be put in to those with greatest need."

The proposal calls for a database to track the development of New Zealand children, which Mr Key would not oppose. "You have to balance the intrusion of privacy over the need to try to get a resolution to an issue that is of quite great concern. In this case the issue warrants that."

But Mr Key doubted that the scheme could be run for $5 million a year. At-risk families would have to receive concentrated support from agencies such as Plunket.

Child, Youth and Family Services Minister Ruth Dyson welcomed the early intervention programme and said she would discuss the proposal with agencies.
 

The Press - Many beneficiaries reveal abuse

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4187788a11.html

Many beneficiaries reveal abuse
By PHIL HAMILTON - The Press | Monday, 3 September 2007

Thousands of beneficiaries are victims of domestic violence, according to new Work and Income statistics.

In the first year, Work and Income's family violence intervention programme asked beneficiaries to reveal violence in the home.

Across the 11 Work and Income (Winz) regions there were 3817 disclosures until the end of June this year, with 339 in Canterbury.

Work and Income head Patricia Reade said a family violence co-ordinator had been put into each region, with no real idea of how many disclosures they would receive.

"We had no expectations around numbers," Reade said. "We just wanted to ensure we were providing appropriate support around domestic violence."

Reade said the number of disclosures, which were leaked to the Press, equated to just over one per cent of their total clients.

"In the context of total benefits (280,000) it's not a big number."

The programme was confidential, with just 1312 of the total number willing to have the information put on their record, she said.

The regional co-ordinators support frontline staff with training, mentoring and information on the range of services and programmes available.

When a person discloses family violence, the case manager refers them to services such as Women's Refuge, Stopping Violence Services, Barnardos and Jigsaw.

Reade said Work and Income could make a significant contribution to reducing family violence and promoting the safety and well-being of clients and their families.

"Because family violence is a sensitive and personal issue, Work and Income provides a supportive and safe environment but respects the client's choice about when and how they disclose family violence."

Christchurch Women's Refuge manager Annette Gillespie said the programme was proving to be a success. "One, in raising awareness; two, in making sure there's a referral path; and three, for strengthening the relationship between our agencies."

She said Women's Refuge had noticed the increase in the number of referrals from Work and Income, but it was not known whether those women would have contacted Women's Refuge themselves.

With the rollout of domestic violence screening at all public hospitals, Gillespie expected demand for Women's Refuge services to rise.

"We would expect where there is the demand there will be greater resourcing."

The programme began in all regions in June 2006, although it had been operating in Nelson, Canterbury and Bay of Plenty as a pilot.

end

"We would expect where there is the demand there will be greater resourcing."

So these programmes will be resourced to meet the demand. Later, as in Sweden, they will then need to keep the demand up to keep getting the resourcing. Many good families who have used reasonable force to correct their children have been ruined by this policy in Sweden. Why will it be any different in New Zealand?
 

24 August 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Collins Comments

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0708/S00429.htm

Collins Comments - 24 August 2007
Column: New Zealand National Party


New Zealanders were sickened when little Nia Glassie – aged 3 – was brutalised and later died in hospital. Many New Zealanders felt that her death was, ironically, a respite from what had clearly been an unmerciful, cruel and short life. Most of us wondered at how anybody could be so evil to a child. Most of us wondered at what has happened to sections of our communities that every 5 weeks, one of our babies is killed, usually by those charged with loving and nurturing them.

It is very easy to put money into welfare and into “programmes”. It’s not so easy to understand the mindset of those who are so lacking in empathy and so devoid of human decency and kindness that they will kill a child. What is even less easy is to stop making excuses for such people, to identify and then prevent the abuse.

We were told by the proponents of the anti-smacking law that this law would stop child abuse. It hasn’t. It won’t. We were told that those of us who have smacked our child on the hand or bottom for being naughty or unruly were, at worst, child abusers and, at the least, condoned “beating our babies”. We weren’t and we aren’t. Now with John Key’s intervention, the Police are required to use common sense in deciding whether or not to prosecute – something that was missing from Sue Bradford’s bill.

We need to understand how someone becomes a child abuser - not to make excuses, but to try to stop babies being killed. There are common markers for child abuse. We know that these incidences primarily occur in what is called “dysfunctional families”. James Whakaruru, Coral- Ellen Burrows, Nia Glassie, Soleil Aplin and Olympia Jetson (to name only a few) lived their short lives in severely dysfunctional homes. The families are normally well known to Child Youth and Family and the Police. They usually consist of loose personal relationships, intergenerational welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addictions, intergenerational child abuse including child sexual abuse, criminality, poor literacy and numeracy, lack of empathy for others, despair, lack of personal responsibility and a reliance on a variety of government departments. Mix all these together, add a child, and we have a recipe for disaster.

In the meantime, a group of parents have organised a march against child abuse this Saturday, 25 August, at 10am in Queen Elizabeth II Square, Queen Street, Auckland. Indications are that the Children’s Commissioner and government agencies won’t attend. Apparently, the organisers are so politically incorrect as to call for harsher sentences for child abusers. Should abusing a child be elevated to a principal factor in sentencing? Of course it should. I’ll attend the march and you might like to be there too.
 

22 August 2007 - worldnetdaily - When good parenting becomes a crime

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57264

When good parenting becomes a crime

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 22, 2007



Bob Dylan's song "The Times, They are a-Changin'" accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.

The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or "smacking" as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a "brave" new world. "Our support will not be popular with many people ... but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children."