Sue Reid: Smacking laws were never about the real issue of child abuse

This in the NZ Herald today.

It is a shame that we have a Families Commission that is driven by ideology rather than listening to families.

Chief commissioner Jan Pryor espouses her beliefs that "positive parenting should never include a smack" (Herald, April 3).

Her so-called justification for the anti-smacking laws are inflammatory and continue to vilify good parents who may use a smack as part of good parental correction.

As a mother of two young children, I resent the constant barrage that fully funded, power-packed organisations such as the Families Commission can constantly deliver from their lofty soap-boxes.

One can be left wondering who represents mums like me who are focused on the task of raising good, law-abiding and positive contributors to society. Like many other mums, I know that I wish to parent within a sensible legal framework and we owe it to good parents to get this law right.

The new flawed law has tried to link a smack on the bottom with child abuse of the worst kind and has put good parents in the same category as rotten parents who are a danger to their kids and to society.

Not surprisingly, the child abuse rate has continued unabated, with 12 child abuse deaths in the 21 months since the law change - the same rate as before the change. The smacking laws were never about addressing the real issue of child abuse but to undermine and criminalise good parents.

Contrary to Pryor's comments, the new law did introduce a new criminal offence - smacks for the purpose of correction, no matter how light, are a crime.

Police reports show four prosecutions in a six-month period for "minor acts of physical discipline" and report a 200 per cent increase in families being investigated - yet fewer than 5 per cent were serious enough to warrant prosecution.

And there has been a huge 32 per cent increase in CYF's notifications, but the cases warranting further investigation haven't increased - in other words, valuable resources and time are taken away from the front line to deal with the real cases of abuse.

Family First NZ has plenty of evidence on its website of families being investigated and traumatised for complaints of light smacking, including parents who are referred to CYF by so-called helping agencies when they are simply seeking help, and of children ringing CYF to complain about their parents - imagine what that is like for a family.

Pryor asks families to seek help but in a culture of being labelled "lowest common denominator", this will do nothing to support and foster good parenting.

She says "there is no legal justification for the use of force to correct a child's behaviour", so why does "positive parenting" not include correction? As a mother I need to be able to teach my child right from wrong and it is an ongoing process to "correct" my child's behaviour - society expects me to fulfil this role.

We can all lament the daily cases in the media whereby individuals have not "corrected" their behaviour and have become a blight on society. Many parents would testify to aspects that are less than positive in the training of a child for the adult world.

I am sure the child does not see "time out" in a positive light nor see grounding as positive. Parents are often seen in negative light when they proceed with knowing best what will work for their child.

The role of parent is set apart from other relationships such as in the workplace or a sports team. Parents have the reserved responsibility to raise, train and shape the will and character of their child to maturity. Adults have already mastered that task - so the argument that Pryor puts forth about smacking another adult is null and void.

It is important to progress through to a referendum in July. This issue continues to be a strong, unresolved matter for most parents. After all, this was a citizens' initiated referendum and the democratic process needs to complete its cycle by asking the voting public, "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence?"

People who don't like the question in the referendum simply don't like the answer they come to.

Organisations such as the Families Commission would better serve families when they consider the attitudes, needs and requirements of families rather than using their government-funded weight to impose a flawed ideology on to good, healthy, functioning families.

* Sue Reid is a researcher and writer for Family First NZ.

Child Abuse Petition Submitted

Press Release: The Kiwi Party - May 14 2008. I will add a few comments in bold.

Time for a new approach on addressing family breakdown, family violence and child abuse

“Today marks the end of 14 months of collecting signatures for a CIR petition in my name to request a referendum on the question, ‘should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?’ The collection of signatures for Sheryl Savill’s petition, which is a separate question entirely, is ongoing and we have now collected approx 350,000 for that petition. I will resubmit those when we are sure we have sufficient to cross the hurdle of the audit process. Our goal is 380,000, see www.unityforliberty.net.nz for a regularly updated signature count.

Today I will deliver approx 300,000 signatures to the Clerk of the House of Representatives for my petition and we will now await (once again) a seemingly bizarre audit process to be carried out according to the CIR Act 1993.

Whatever the outcome of this process, 300,000 signatures represent a huge response from the people of New Zealand who have consistently expressed their concern at our deplorable child abuse and family violence statistics. Absolutely. 300,000 Kiwis have put pen to paper, saying that they are sick and tired of the child-abuse and family-breakdown which continues, unabated - despite the untold millions of tax-payers money that the Government continues to throw at the problem - in the form of Cindy Kiro (Children's Commissioner), and the Families Commission - as well as countless other beurocracies busy accomplishing nothing good.

After nearly nine years of a Government lead by Helen Clark and supported entirely or in part by Jim Anderton, Jeannette Fitzsimons, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters, there is not a single statistic that can be referred to that shows their ‘lame duck policies’ have worked. This is despite huge tax surpluses and a strong economy.

A clear example of this is that we now have the Minister of Social Development openly acknowledging her own department’s report that reveals the poor are worse off under a Labour Government than after the ‘mother of all budgets’ in the 90’s.

This petition and these signatures are calling for greater action on understanding and then addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse.

We begin our question with the call to “understand’, as that is the first step to solving any problem. Clearly this Government does not have any understanding of the real causes of our problems and has simply continued to keep bringing so many ‘ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’ type responses that there is no parking space left. What we really need are some solid fences constructed at the top.

Our social statistics reveal such systemic problems within our society that the Kiwi Party believes the Government should urgently appoint an independent Royal Commission to respond to this. Surely it is time to look for new answers and solutions?

Anti-smacking advocate and nanny state zealot Sue Bradford, now admits (contrary to her earlier claims) that her Anti Smacking Bill was never intended to address the causes of child abuse and reduce our awful statistics for child maltreatment deaths.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense now acknowledges that with 7 child deaths in less than a year, Bradford's Bill is a feel-good fantasy dressed up as a complete waste of time, unless of course Bradford's real plan was to deconstruct the traditional family unit." Wow, I completely agree Larry. A dangerous but brave question to ask.

Families Commission Launches Hypocritical Campaign

"Parenting. The best day's work you'll ever do" reads the large (tax-payer funded) advert at the Bus-stop. And who else would it be, but the Families Commission to give this message to New Zealanders as they drive around the city.

Ironic doesn't even begin to describe the hypocrisy of it. First they back the bill calling for the disempowerment of the majority of Kiwi mums and dads - and then they turn around and say "hey, parenting's the best!".

I have spoken to several thousand Kiwi mums and dads who do use an occasional smack now and then, to correct their children. They do this lovingly - the child understands why he is being smacked, and reconciliation is made. What tool do parents have now, to back up the requests and instructions they give their children?

Do not for one moment believe that the Families Commission is in place to support families - they are a State-run operation that has a huge anti-family agenda. That is, Family as we know it.

I do not doubt the genuine sincerity many of those involved with the commission do have for their job. The majority of these people really do care about child abuse and more functional families in New Zealand - however, they are going about it the wrong way, and are inadvertently working for the destruction of the family.

Self-important beaurocrats sit around tables - some of whom who have never had children, and they theorise about the way families should operate. Look at the list of parenting essentials and you will quickly see that there is no mention of punishment or the fact that children are naughty. Instead, following the humanist manifesto that children are basically good, and that there is no place for negativity in parenting.