MEDIA RELEASE 28 MAY 2007
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.