Smacking Law Referendum Likely

David Farrar at Kiwiblog reports...

The SST reports that it looks likely that opponents of the anti-smacking law will gain the 300,000 signatures they need to trigger a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

They have to do it by 1 March 2008. Now just because on paper they have over 10% of the eligible voters, doesn't mean they automatically succeed. A proportion of the signatures are always found to be invalid.

The Government will have a dilemma over the timing of any referendum. The Clerk of the House has two months, or until the end of April to determine the the petition has enough signatures. Then the Government sets a date within 12 months.

Now the most logical thing to do is include it with the general election, which will be only six months off.  But Labour may not want people voting on the anti-smacking law at the same time as they vote for a party. So they may try to hold the referendum earlier.

But this will cost significantly more money to have it as a separate election.  So Labour would be accused of wasting taxpayer money for its own electoral purposes.  The ballpark estimate is this increases the cost from around $1.5 million to $10 million.  Will the Govt has a convincing reasons for spending an extra $8.5 million rather than just have the referendum with the election?

Anti-smacking law likely to come under more heavy fire this year

This from the Gisborne Herald

Politicians look like being confronted, challenged and possibly embarrassed by the prospect of a referendum on the anti-smacking law later this year, almost certainly held in tandem with the next election.

Opponents of the controversial legislation initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford are now close to the 300,000 signatures necessary to force a citizen's initiated referenda.

Almost 5000 signatures were obtained last weekend, including 1000 at the World Cup of Motorsport event at Taupo, 720 at a "blues, brews and barbecues" event in Hastings and other tallies from A&P Shows.

The current total of almost 268,000 represents a gain of 43,000 in the past two months, suggesting no diminution of public feeling on the issue.

Principal organiser Larry Baldock told The Gisborne Herald: "We've got to keep it moving, but we're pretty confident we'll be able to see this through to a referendum."

Two petitions are being canvassed with a deadline of February 28 to obtain the signatures of at least 10 percent of registered electors and present them to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The first -- "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? -- is in the name of Aucklander Sheryl Savill, a mother-of-two who works with Focus on the Family and whose husband is a policeman.

The second, in Mr Baldock's name, is "Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?"

As a former United Future MP Mr Baldock has been the public face of the campaign since the petitions began circulating a year ago, with strong support from volunteers, organised groups and churches.

The terms for organising and conducting Citizen's Initiated Referenda (CIR) are defined by legislation enacted by the Bolger administration in 1993, since when only two petitions have reached the point of forcing a plebiscite.

Interesting stuff . . . but even a referendum result is not binding on the Government.

_________________________________________________________________________
If you haven't signed this petition then you need to, go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html and print it sign it and send it. oh and get your mates to sign it too !!

Smack in the middle of hysteria

The Anti smacking debate is growing in Australia with the aussie Govt giving an anti smacking lobby group 2.5 million Australian dollars.

This is from the Sydney Morning Herald

At the gym one day during the holidays a mother was struggling with a shrieking toddler. The child had worked himself into hysteria and the sounds of his distress gave new meaning to "piercing" for those of us caught in the maelstrom. In the shower at first I thought I was hearing a hurricane ripping off a steel roof. Apart from prompting a flash of admiration for such energy and stamina from so small a set of lungs, the sound was deeply disturbing.

It continued for five or 10 minutes. All over the gym, from the pool to the women's changing room, concerned gym-goers tiptoed towards the source of the sound to determine the cause of distress, retreating in embarrassment when they saw the mother, sitting passively in the face of such fury.

She seemed calm, if hunkered down, not remonstrating with the child, in fact scarcely acknowledging his drama, just unemotionally absorbing the noise at close quarters. Perhaps she was deaf.

On top of the incivility of subjecting others to the noise in a not particularly child-friendly establishment, her zen-like refusal to even try to dim the din was annoying.

Everyone else was powerless to control the volume and was waiting for her to do her job, or at least to remove the child to a place where his noise would not be amplified by porcelain-tiled walls.

What was her plan? Was she so exhausted by a difficult child that she could only cope by remaining silent? Or was she merely exercising a modern form of permissive parenting?

It was obviously not what the child wanted - he needed a reaction to all his effort, though after a while he was beyond reason. It can't have been what the mother wanted, and it sure wasn't what anyone else in the gym wanted.

People wanted to reach out and help the wretched woman and her poor child, but were at a loss.

How do you tell a women her child needs a good smack?

Remembering the bossy older women who used to exasperate my friends and me when our children were younger by offering unsolicited snarky advice about our tots' perceived public misbehaviour, I hesitate before casting judgment on other mothers. We even started a joke support group, "Mothers Against Meanies" (MAM) to get the nosey-parkers to back off.

But, seriously, what happened to discipline? Little in the history of parenting has ever proven as effective as a sharp rebuke or, dare I say it, a swift smack on the bottom that acts as an instant "reboot" of a naughty child.

Some people will never agree with corporal punishment. But that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't control their kids; it's just more complicated. For their own sake as much as for the children, not to mention the rest of society, they should at least try.

In the ABC-TV program The Madness of Modern Families, on Tuesday night, a British father described meal-times in his child-led household: "There's been times when we've cooked a healthy meal and plonked it down in front of the children and then seen them eat nothing and worry they're going to wake up in the night, and think it'd be easier to cook them another meal now."

That's not good parenting. It's a recipe for monsters.

This reluctance by well-meaning modern parents to enforce fair, firm, quickly administered discipline is creating havoc with the generation into which infamous Melbourne party planner Corey Delaney (aka Worthington) was born.

The 16-year-old with the pierced nipple and trademark yellow sunglasses achieved international notoriety when he threw an out-of-control party while his parents were away, attracting 500 teenagers and the police riot squad.

He doesn't seem a bad kid, and was at least trying to sweep up the mess the next day when TV cameras descended. His refusal to be intimidated by A Current Affair's school-marmish interviewer was commendable. It's his ineffectual parents, Jo and Steve Delaney, who are the problem, with their posturing TV interviews, "open letter" to newspapers and utter inability to command their son's respect.

"He's devastated," Jo Delaney told one program while her son was on a rival channel boasting about "the best party ever".

Public opinion on the internet advocates a firmer approach. The website www.slapcorey.com, has an image of the spotty, barechested teen, and a hand you can click to administer the punishment. By yesterday afternoon almost 650,000 people had indulged.

The Delaneys seem typical of a subset of laissez-faire baby-boomer parents who haven't learned to say "No".

Data from a new NSW Government parent helpline shows a crisis in parental confidence, with 20 per cent of calls from parents tearing out their hair about how to discipline their unruly offspring. And a study last year from the Vanderbilt Medical Centre in Tennessee found a third of parents believe their discipline methods are "never" or only "sometimes effective".

Perhaps working parents try to outsource discipline and training of their children to nannies and other carers in the mistaken hope that family time will be calm. Perhaps step-parents are reluctant to mete out discipline, concerned the child will not recognise their authority.

Meanwhile the anti-smacking lobby is flexing its muscles, with the Australian Childhood Foundation pushing for a national law, following New Zealand, to prevent parents using corporal punishment. The Federal Government last year even gave them $2.5 million to fund a campaign warning parents not to smack.

The idea is that banning smacking in the home reduces violence in society. But common sense and the facts say the opposite, that lax parenting leads to more aggressive children.

The Norwegian bullying expert and psychology professor Dan Olweus has shown that "overly permissive parenting" actually creates bullies. No one wants to go back to an era in which children were seen and not heard, or belted when they were bad. There is plenty to admire about today's parents, who are involved and interested in their children's lives, and treat them with respect.

But there is a sensible middle ground, in which a firm "No", even the odd smack, or raised voice, does not make you a bad parent. At the very least, if permissive parents want to give their misbehaving children free rein, could they please do it in the privacy of their own homes. Preferably with soundproofing.

Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out.

This from the NZ Herald

A South Auckland foster care group says a quarter of its foster parents have quit because of the "anti-smacking" law passed last year.

South Auckland Caregivers Association chairwoman Allysa Carberry said the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed caregivers to use reasonable force to "correct" children, had made a chronic shortage worse.

"A quarter of our members have left because of section 59. I could rattle off about 10 in South Auckland. I know of many, many caregivers who have been longstanding caregivers but won't do caregiving any more. It's too dangerous.

"These kids are really hard. They just don't care who they hurt, and you need really special people to take them on. If you have a kid that is yelling and screaming at you, what are you supposed to do?"

Child, Youth and Family Services has faced mounting problems finding foster parents in recent years, as the number of children in care has grown by 18 per cent in the past five years to 5049, while the number of single-income families with one parent available at home for caregiving has shrunk.

However, other foster care groups said the smacking law was not a factor for their members.

Both Carolyn Hill, who chairs the national Family and Foster Care Federation, and Foster Care Auckland chairman Byron Perkins said they had not heard of any caregiver leaving because of the law change.

"People are leaving because they are dissatisfied with CYFS," Mr Perkins said. "It comes down to the whole area of professionalism and payments because both couples have to go to work to earn the money to pay the mortgage."

A CYFS survey published in November found that 71 per cent of its mainly-female primary caregivers now work outside the home - 20 per cent fulltime and 51 per cent part-time. Although 80 per cent of its mainly-male secondary caregivers have paid work, most are low-paid. Only 46 per cent earn more than $35,000 a year.

Three-quarters said the foster care allowance of $124 to $174 a week per child depending on the child's age did not cover all their costs such as transporting the children to school and other activities.

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren convener Di Vivian said many grandparents were "frightened" by the new law, but she did not know of any who had given up caring for their grandchildren because of it.

A CYFS spokeswoman said the repeal of section 59 made no difference to the service's long-standing policy against any "physical discipline".

Australian Anti-Smacking Campaign

From the Daily Telegraph, Australia - 19 Jan 08

...Data from the new Parent Line shows discipline far outranks other concerns about children, with nearly 20 per cent of calls from mums or dads begging for advice on how to handle their toddler or troubled teen.

Experts [1] say mixed messages are leaving parents uncertain how to punish their children in a politically correct age when smacking is considered wrong. [2]

``Parents feel smacking doesn't work [3] and prefer not to use physical punishment, but are not sure what to put in its place,'' said Joe Tucci from the Australian Childhood Foundation (ACF), which is behind a push for a national anti-smacking law.

``We need to set a community standard that, under law, children can't be hurt [4] that is the kid of law we think should be introduced that would clarify it for parents,'' Mr Tucci said...

-----------------------------

Comments
1. So-called "experts" are not the people to turn to for advice on raising children.

2. Who says smacking is wrong? - I can absolutely guarantee you that the attitude to smacking in Australia will be very close to that of New Zealand.  In New Zealand, when the Government pushed through the anti-democratic and draconian Anti-Smacking bill, 83% of the population were opposed to the law change.

3. Well of course some parents feel that smacking doesn't work, however Joe Tucci is grossly misrepresenting the truth here.

4. All children get hurt from time to time as they grow up.  Whether if it's knocking their head on the side of the dresser, or getting a quick slap on the bottom for something they've done wrong.

In Summary, These "anti-smacking" lobbyists consistently ignore the rights of the majority of the population.  They push ahead with their agenda for social change - as Sue Bradford (introduced the Anti-Smacking bill to NZ Parliament) says "We've got to change this culture of violence".  They twist words and use emotive language to strengthen their argument, for instance, describing a loving smack as a beating.

Unity For Liberty's response to police report on smacking cases

This is Unity For Liberty's response to the police report on smacking which came out last year.
____________________________________________

Please do not be fooled by the recent Police review and the media. It has been reported that the court has not been inundated with cases so the law is working. This is not the full story.
Firstly, they claim there has only been 15 investigations, but we are almost averaging one story a week from one table. The report also goes on to say that ?an absence of a notification on a Police file does not necessarily mean that no notification was made.?

I was speaking to a prominent Party leader's secretary, she made this comment "The police are required to investigate all reports", this is a classic case of "If we ask the wrong questions we will arrive at the wrong answer". Read on

There is a very disturbing trend that is developing in this country, this law, rather than being tested in the courts of the land, appears that it is being enforced by fear and intimidation from our Police Force. Recently a Grandmother was threatened with arrest just for restraining a 2 yr old from running on the road. The Officer made it very clear "I will let you off this time but next time I will arrest you". But there's more, this will test the above Police review figures. When the officer moved on, another woman (unsure if she was a mum or gran) come up and said, "They aren't kidding, they escorted me to the Police Station and interviewed me for the same thing last week."

We have since been made aware of more similar stories, they have been forwarded to Bob McCoskrie at Family First, please forward all stories to Bob, for him protection of the victim is more important than the story, he is a trusted person.

The secretary above, like the rest of us, assumed the police will only be investigating reported cases, who would have thought they themselves would become proactive and start intimidating grandmothers, and this was INCONSEQUENTIAL.

A solo mum, also a New Zealand citizen, who has not broken any law, the police chose to investigate her history through social services and then chose to challenge her parenting skills. She then went to complain to her local MP about her treatment, only to receive a phone call from the Police District Commander, "don't bother wasting the MP's time".

We pay out taxes to be protected by our police, now innocent New Zealanders are being attacked.

Unity for Liberty will be presenting our own review assessed from the trail of devastation that is being left behind from this Bad Law.

Let's collect these signatures and keep the politicians honest,

_______________________________________________
Go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz to print of the petition form, sign it and send it to ,

C/o CIR
P.O. Box 9228
Greerton, Tauranga

Don't Vote Labour: the poem

Christchurch marched in driving rain,
Three thousand protests were in vain,
"Protect parental rights!", they cried.
"We're protecting children", Labour lied.

"Freedom of Speech", Labour said,
They're trying to get our votes instead.
"Make them pay!" they declared.
With Mugabe they're compared.

"They've got too much freedom", Labour thinks,
"What else can we ban? Can't ban the drinks,
Helen didn't sleep because of the show,
So fireworks are the next to go!"

That's right Labour! We don't mind
We know you're trying to be kind,
Get rid of all our fireworks nights,
Take our freedom, ignore our rights.

"Close down SIT? No problems at all,
Old Tim Shadbolt's a bit of a fool.
Raise the taxes! Increase the rates!
We know that's what our country hates."

Let Labour in again? It's not wise,
They're trying to control our lives.
The only thing that can be done,
Is get them out and have some fun.

- by a free-thinking 16 year old who refuses to obey the Electoral Finance Act and put her name and address on this "Election Advertisment"

Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father

Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys - Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.

This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.

As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike - and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.

Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad's face, and heard him say "wait Seth, we have to look after Zach". Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.

An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.

One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad's head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?...

--------------------------------

Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):

Ms Bradford, the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation, says if an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be "marched down to the slammer."

Ms Bradford says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence.

from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz

Cindy Kiro, "Children's Commissioner":

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son's ear.

"The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly."

from http://www.nzherald.co.nz

--------------------------------

Kiro and Bradford, are both part of the huge bireaucracy of New Zealand. Kiro's role as "children's commissioner" was appointed by the Labour Government, and Bradford got into Parliament as a list MP. Neither of them represent New Zealanders. Bradford puts a spin on the case, labelling the flicked ear as a whack around the ear. In a statement to the media a couple of hours later, Kiro joins in the martyrdom of the caring father, firstly by honouring the off-duty police-woman that reported the incident, and then by linking child deaths resulting from being bashed on the head with a light flick on the ear.

Jimmy Mason:

"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."

"[The police officers] didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."

"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater. There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."

He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

from http://www.stuff.co.nz

--------------------------------

Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.

Father warned for disciplining boy, 3

By PHIL HAMILTON - The Press | Monday, 14 January 2008

A Christchurch father is fuming after he received a police warning for hitting a child after he flicked his son's ear in public as a reprimand.

Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike.

The toddler took off down a ramp and was followed by his brother, Zach, two, who was also on a new bike. Seth made the tight corner but Zach did not, and injured his eye.

"Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn't realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness," Mason said.

"So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one," Mason said.

A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers.

"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said.

"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."

Mason said he took his sons biking every day and they needed to obey his instructions to the letter in order to stay safe.

"When I say 'stop' to the kids they have got to stop," he said. "I said to the cops that I need to impress upon him (Seth) what he did was wrong and I need to impress it on him straight away and asked them how they suggested I do it.

"They didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."

In the end, Mason was not charged but he was told that a warning would go on his record for hitting his child.

"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater.

"There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."

He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

He felt sorry for the police having to administer the amended child-discipline law which came into force in June last year.

Inspector Rick Jury said he could not discuss individual cases but the law gave the police some discretion.

"It says every parent is justified in using force if it's reasonable in the circumstances," he said. One of the specific clauses allowing some force was for the purposes of preventing or minimising harm, and the legislation allowed police to make a determination over whether it was "inconsequential" and not in the public interest to prosecute.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said cases like this showed the law was an ass.

"It just seems totally over the top," he said. "That's the problem with this law, it's lost the common-sense element. It's a feel-good law change but has done nothing to protect kids who are actually being abused."

A police spokeswoman said a review since the amendment found that between June and September last year police were called to three smacking incidents and 12 minor acts of physical discipline. The 15 cases were determined to be "inconsequential" and not worth prosecuting, although nine warnings were issued.

Teenager Collecting Signatures Against Bradford Law Assaulted

Press Release - Unity for Liberty - 4 January 2008

Unity for Liberty leader, Craig Hill, is stunned with the behavior of an
opponent to the petition against the Sue Bradford anti-smacking law.

Mr Hill's 18 year old daughter was pushed to the ground by a woman who
was trying to destroy the petition forms that had been signed at a
shopping centre in Pukekohe this afternoon.

An assault complaint has been laid to the Police.

"It seems ironic that people who claim they are against abuse have no
problems assaulting a teenage girl," says Mr Hill. "They seem unable to
differentiate the difference between a smack and child abuse, and they
also have no problem using unreasonable force on other people."

Unity for Liberty has collectors throughout NZ collecting signatures
demanding a Referendum against Bradford's anti-smacking bill and
demanding that the politicians tackle the real causes of child abuse.

Over 250,000 signatures have been collected already, and Mr Hill's
daughter has been collecting signatures every weekend over the past 5
months and during the holiday period.

Click here for the News report on this case

Click here for comments from the nzconservative blog

250,000 Signatures Collected

"This is a message to Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and all those who thought they could ignore good decent Mum’s and Dad’s in this country who are trying to do their best with the most important job in the world. No Helen, it’s not being Prime Minister, it is raising good kids."

"The referendum is coming which will allow every New Zealander to have their say. If the PM, Sue Bradford and all the MP’s who supported it had any respect for democracy they would have called for the referendum themselves!"

Click here for the Press Release from Larry Baldock

Larry Baldock & Bradford on Radio NZ

Larry comments on the false "3 Month Review" issued by the Police recently. Bradford attempts to defend the flawed piece of legislation with her name on it. Larry brings up the salient question "if there have been no prosecutions - then what is the point of the law?"

The below clip is six minutes long and well worth a listen.

Right click here and choose "save" to download the MP3 file

Audio from: www.radionz.co.nz

Spain quick to follow NZ on anti-parental-authority law

This from www.abc.net.au | 21 Dec 07

The Spanish Congress has passed a bill that bans parents from smacking their children.

Spanish law had allowed parents to 'reasonably and moderately correct their children'.

But the Socialist government has voted to delete that clause in order to remove any ambiguity.

The conservative opposition party voted against the change on the grounds that it would leave parents powerless to discipline their children.

Of Europe's 46 member states, 16 have already banned smacking at school and in the home.

Police Report out on "anti-smacking" law

The long awaited police review of the "anti-smacking" law is out.

There has been a slight increase in smacking cases.

Here is their graph.

Table 1
Events	Volume before Amendment	Volume after Amendment	Increase in volume of events
"Smacking"	3	3	0
"Minor acts of physical discipline"	10	12	2
Other child assault	82	96	14
Total	95	111	16

_________________________________________________________

Please read the report here http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/section-59-activity-review/

Comment to come later.

Smacking referendum bid nears goal

Great to finally see the media doing it's job, reporting on the massive Nation-wide effort of people collecting signatures on the petition.

Manawatu Standard | Saturday, 15 December 2007

More than 240,000 people have signed a petition calling for anti-smacking legislation to be repealed. A steady flow of people added their names to the list in Palmerston North yesterday.

Future New Zealand political party co- leader Larry Baldock and his wife Barbara set up a stand near The Plaza about 11.15am.

By 3.30pm they had more than 240 extra signatures.

The petition needs 300,000 signatures by March 1 if the issue is to be voted on at the next general election in 2008, Mr Baldock said.

The campaign lost momentum after Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial child discipline bill, which outlaws physical punishment, passed into law last winter.

However, Mr Baldock said petition volunteers' spirits have picked up and they have their sights set on the 300,000 target to force a non-binding citizens' initiated referendum.

"We're not interested in trying to convince people," Mr Baldock said yesterday.

"Most people are upset - they didn't want [the law], but [Parliament] went ahead and did it anyway."

The law wastes police resources and makes good parents nervous, Mr Baldock said.

Palmerston North man Rhys Rossiter said he signed the petition because the law "criminalises parents for doing what they do".

The law also encourages people to nark on parents who discipline their children, he said.

"There's a difference between beating a kid and disciplining a kid."

The law has done nothing to stop child abuse, he said.

New Zealand has the third highest rate among developed nations of child deaths due to maltreatment. On average our adults kill 1.2 children per 100,000 each year.

The petition has two questions:

• Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
• Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?

Petition calls for repeal of Bradford's Bill

www.times-age.co.nz | 14.12.2007 | By Gerald Ford

Opponents of Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial "anti-smacking bill" enacted this year were collecting signatures in Masterton yesterday on a petition calling for its repeal.

Two petitions were presented, calling for referenda on two questions: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?

Larry Baldock, the former United Future MP, who is presenting the second petition, said yesterday at 240,000 they were close to the 300,000 needed for a referendum...

Click here to read the rest of the article

Latest study unreliable

www.stuff.co.nz | Friday, 14 December 2007 reports...

"Three out of four young parents physically discipline their children - and one in eight have seriously assaulted them - a Christchurch study reveals."

"The study, completed before smacking was outlawed, asked 155 parents under 25 how they acted towards their children in the previous 12 months, taking into account punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking.

Researchers concluded the use of child physical punishment was likely to be common among young parents and up to 12 per cent engaged in "harsh or abusive treatment".

Lead researcher Canterbury University Associate Professor Lianne Woodward said social and family background had a big influence on the parents' use of physical punishment..."
Click here to read the rest of the article

------------------------------------------------

155 parents were surveyed says the Newspaper report. This "research" cannot be taken seriously, as it cannot posssibly be representative of the population of Christchurch, let-alone the rest of New Zealand. Look how fast Kiro is to jump at it and say "see, we've got to change". The study was done prior to the bill passing into law, so quite apart from anything else, the results are irrelevant to today.

12% of the parents surveyed apparently admitted to having beaten their children up at some stage. What demographic was surveyed? It seems pretty improbable that anyone would admit in a survey to having beaten up a child.

"punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking." - This is well put, it clearly seperates smacking from abuse. Smacking is classified as punishment while burning and choking are said to be assult. It's pretty obvious that these are assult. However we've got Sue Bradford and Cindy Kiro and their colleagues screaming out bloody murder, claiming that a parent who cares enough about their child to give him/her a loving smack now and then is a heartless child-abuser.

Over-all, the statistic that 75% of young parents smack their children comes as no surprise. The finding that 12% of young parents abuse their children however, is rubbish. We know for a fact that child-abusers form a very small percentage of our population.

77pc of parents smack - study

According to a new study, 77% of parents smack their children

This from the NZ Herald
_________________________________________________

As many as 77 per cent of parents aged 25 in a study said they had smacked children, with 12 per cent admitting they severely assaulted a child in the past year.

The data was gathered as part of a Christchurch Health and Development Study and reported in the latest New Zealand Medical Journal. "The use of physical punishment and more severe forms of physical assault/abuse are relatively common among contemporary young parents," the study found.

A separate study in the journal also found smacking was widespread in the Pacific Island community, and hitting children with objects was common.

French parents back smacking

from www.thehindu.com

Most French children are used to the odd spank from their parents, and many think there is nothing wrong with that, a new survey suggests. An Internet poll by the Paris-based Union of Families in Europe (UFE), an organisation which defends families' rights in France, shows that 65 per cent of children in France think la fessee — French for a smack on the bottom — is a normal part of their upbringing, with more than half thinking they de serve it.

Spanking is certainly central in a French education if the survey is anything to go by. More than 95 per cent of the 2,000 grandparents, parents, and children polled said they had been spanked at some point in their lives.

A nationwide poll carried out nearly 10 years ago revealed that more than 85 per cent of French parents spanked their children compared with 87 per cent in the new survey. While spanking may still be popular in France, other forms of punishment, such as a slap on the cheek or a kick are rarely used and are considered dangerous by many parents, the survey showed.

Original Section 59 Does Its Job

Family First Media Release - 7 December 2007

Family First is welcoming the conviction of two foster parents who were today found guilty of assaulting two sisters in their care, including hitting one in the face with a baseball bat.

"Despite the original section 59 being available as a possible defence to the couple, it has not protected them in any way, and neither should it have," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The actions of these foster parents were not reasonable – they were simply abusive."

"This case shows that when applied correctly, abusive parents could not use section 59 to their advantage. That was the original design of the law, and it was not the law itself that was at fault – it was simply its application in a couple of high profile cases. It has done its job perfectly in this case."

"But what we have now is confusing to parents, is targeting good and non-abusive parents with malicious and unwarranted complaints, has distracted police and CYF resources from at-risk families, and has done nothing to stem the flow of our unacceptable child abuse rates."

"The law change has failed to target drug and alcohol fuelled abuse or domestic violence, family breakdown or dysfunction, teenage parenting needs, and poverty and stress issues," says Mr McCoskrie.

"Until we resource and support frontline organisations like Plunket and other local community organisations working with at-risk families, provide midwives and appropriate postnatal care (especially to first-time and teen mothers), and strengthen struggling families with appropriate counseling and relationship support, no amount of tinkering with section 59 will achieve anything."

"But 83% of NZ'ers already know that."