Anti-Smacking Law, One Year On

One year ago, on 2 May 2008, Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill passed it's third reading. The bill had the numbers to pass, however the entire National party turned 180 degrees and all National MPs were forced to vote in favour of the bill.

Just hours before, John Key and Helen Clark had come to an agreement for a "compromise" on the bill. ACT Party leader, Rodney Hide had this to say, on 3 May:

"I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill. Good on John Key I thought. He's taken the high ground and made a difference. That's what I thought. Until I saw the amendment. It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it's Helen Clark!! This
amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms "inconsequential" and "public interest". - Rodney Hide: "Ammendment makes no difference"

The ammendment was the new subsection 4 of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, 1961, and reads:

(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential

However, the ridiculous thing is that this "inconsequential" clause was already a part of the law in New Zealand, and applies to all cases where police are considering prosecution.

Sue Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes act
Criminalises parents who elect to lightly smack their child(ren) occasionally.

...Everyday mums and dads.

The bill for repeal passes with

113 votes for. 93% of the members of Parliament. 17% to 32% of New Zealanders
Labour, National, Maori, Greens, Progressive, Peter Dunne (United Future), 4 members of NZ First

8 votes against. 7% of the members of Parliament. 68% to 83% of New Zealanders
ACT, Gordon Copeland (ex United Future), Taito Philip Field (ex Labour), 3 NZ First, Judy Turner (United Future)

And on 21 May 2008, the Governor General abandoned his duty of protecting New Zealand citizens from bad law that had managed to get through the parliamentary process - and gave consent to the bill becoming law.

On Thursday 21 June 2007, the law came into effect.

New Zealand has not forgotten this dark moment in her history. This will make itself evident at the 2008 election.

Give your party vote to The Kiwi Party, or ACT, as these are the two parties who care enough about the voice of the people of New Zealand, to bring about a change in this draconian home-invasion law.

Anti-Smacking Bill Hits California

The latest news in from California...

A proposal in the California Legislature that would define a well-deserved spanking administered in love by a concerned parent using a rolled-up newspaper as child abuse – and could send that parent to jail – now is facing a delay.

The plan, AB 2943 by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-San Jose, is a rerun of her same plan that was defeated a year ago. She has stated that her proposal only addresses "child abuse" but she also defines any spanking at all as child abuse.

Several California organizations that support traditional family values and parenting rights have raised a red flag over the issue again this year. Now the Campaign for Children and Families confirms that the plan has been delayed, and it credits a flood of telephone calls and e-mails from those concerned about the issue.

"It the last two days, Assembly Appropriations Committee members have received hundreds of phone calls and e-mail messages from Californians opposed to the notion of criminalizing parents who lovingly and infrequently spank their children to correct misbehavior," the organization said in a statement today.

- "Attack on Parenting Facing Delay" 1 May 2008 (click here for full article)

Timaru Herald Editorial Mouthpiece for Anti-Freedom Government

By Simeon, with notes by Andy [A]

The Timaru Herald published an editorial today slamming the petition calling for a referendum on the "anti-smacking" law as a "a sideshow". The editorial then goes on to say that Sue Bradford's comment telling opponents of the law to "move on" is actually popular opinion.

But this article is wrong in the assumptions that it is making. Firstly it says that "National's last-minute intervention that the police would not pursue inconsequential smacking took away much of the objection and the bill was easily passed." No this took away NO objection to this legislation, if you look at recent polling then you will see that public opinion is very much the same.

In fact, just over a week ago, a small group of volunteers collected 5,800 signatures at the V8 Racing event in Hamilton. Ahem, sorry, what did you say? public opinion has changed? Don't make me laugh. [A]

Next it says "But while the petition attracted 324,511 signatures, only 267,000 have been deemed valid, well short of the 285,000 to force the poll". 267,000 is not far off 285,000 and is one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history.

"one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history." - how much is this editor being paid? He's just filling up paper with worthless points. It is a normal number of signatures to be submitted, and the audit is not bad news at all! Norm Wither's "law and order" petition lost 60,000 signatures in it's audit. [A]

Thirdly it says "But consider what has happened since the bill was passed. The worst fears have not been realised. We have not seen a procession of parents through the courts charged with assault in the name of child discipline -- there have been just five cases. Nor have we seen the law preventing the most extreme cases, with children still dying or being badly injured at the hands of their parents." That is five cases which did not need to happen. Five families have had unneeded police interference.

Of course "the worst fears have not been realised". I have been saying this from the beginning. The Labour/Greens government knows it would be suicide to allow the police force to administer this draconian law to it's fullest extent. No indeed, they will wait until (they hope) they get elected into Government again next year, and then will begin the regime of Government initiated home-invasion on thousands of good, caring family-homes. [A]

Fourthly it says "So what has happened? Until the research is done it is only guesswork to assume the legislation is producing behavioural change. Anecdotally, there appears to be greater awareness by parents of alternatives to physical discipline, which is a good thing." We will reap what we sow.

Perhaps it is a good thing, but it doesn't even begin to justify the introduction of such a anti-freedom law, against the will of the majority of the population (83%). [A]

Lastly it says "Politicians will welcome the prospect of no anti-smacking referendum at this year's election. It would be a sideshow to the far more serious main event, and yet could also be a rogue element in terms of colouring voters' intentions. It is time to move." Yes that is true, Helen Clark and Sue Bradford will welcome no referendum at this election because if we have one everyone will be reminded at the ballot box about what Labour and the Greens have done. But no it is not time to move on because politicians are our servants not our masters.

Why are you lot so paranoid, so beside yourselves with concern at the prospect of a referendum being held? [A]

Confusion over Petition Audit Cleared Up

The No Right Turn blog explains how the Clerk came up with his figure of 269,500 (a shortfall of about 15,000) - when we were expecting 282,067 (a shortfall of about 3,000).

The Government Statistician checked 29,501, and found that 25,754 (87.3%) were valid. Multiply that proportion by the 324,511 and you get 283,294 - just 1,733 signatures short of the number required. So why does the Government Statistician say they need 18,000 more signatures? An evil plot to subvert god's will and prevent spanking through Satanic statistics?

No. Instead, its about the duplicates. The Government Statistician found 160 multiple signatures in the sample - 158 duplicates and 2 triplicates. The sample was 1/11th of the total, so this suggests that there will be a further 160 x 10 = 1,600 replicates in the sample where the other match is in the rest of the population - and therefore a further 1,600 x 10 hidden replicates in the population as a whole. Which pretty clearly gets us in the right ballpark. The problem is slightly more complicated than that, since signatures can be both invalid and duplicated; statisticians have a number of different ways of estimating this, but that's about the stage I start seeing tentacles. The important thing is that this is not a satanic statistical plot, but a problem of childbeaters being idiots who think that signing a petition multiple times helps their cause. We can only hope that they don't think the same about voting.

(With thanks to Mary Whiteside & Mark Eakin, A Better Estimate of the Number of Valid Signatures on a Petition [PDF]).

The Clerk should have released the workings in the first place, it's called Transparency.

Action Alert - Petition on Anti smacking law - From Family First

WHAT THE MEDIA HAVE BEEN SAYING TODAY REGARDING THE ANTI-SMACKING REFERENDUM

" Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures " TV3 news site
" The opponents of the "anti-smacking" law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum." - NewstalkZB
" Smacking opponents told to 'move on' after failure " NZ Herald
" Smacking Petition falls short " Dominion Post

HERE'S THE FACTS ....
How many signatures were submitted?
324,216

How many were needed to force the referendum?
Only 285.027

How many were found invalid after the thorough audit?
The government statistician ( our emphasis added ) took a sample of almost 30,000 and found an 'invalid' rate of about 13% (pretty good considering Norm Wither's law and order petition had 20% invalid rate)

So that means 324,216 less 13% invalid = 282,067 - a shortfall of about 3,000?
Yes - that's what you would expect

But they're saying that the shortfall is 18,027; 15,000 greater than the sample would indicate
That's what the government statistician ( our emphasis added) is saying

So how did he get the extra invalid signatures numbering 15,000?
Beats me (pardon the pun!). They have literally plucked a figure out of the air (arguing 'margin of error' and despite their already thorough audit), said it's their 'best estimate' - and under the Act, they don't have to be accountable for how they came to that figure.

Do we have extra time to collect the 15,000 shortfall
YES! 2 more months. As they say, "it's not over until the...."

Have any more signatures been collected since the previous cut-off date?
Yes! Almost 20,000 (including 6,500 at the V8 races last weekend - gotta love those petrol-heads!)

So you have enough to force the Referendum?
You would think so, but based on the confusing and suspicious calculations made by the government statistician ( our emphasis added ) we need a buffer of 20,000 more signatures to be totally sure

What about the 2nd petition demanding a Commission of Enquiry to identify and tackle real child abuse and their causes
This petition is also 20,000 short but because it had less than the required number of signatures as at the first cut-off date of February 28th, the 20,000 on the 2nd petition need to be submitted by May 14 - that's right - 2 weeks away

SO WHAT NOW?

Thought you'd never ask!

We need to collect 20,000 signatures on BOTH petitions preferably within 2 weeks.

WE'RE TOO CLOSE TO FAIL AT THE LAST HURDLE

1. Print off the petition form containing the 2 petitions http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/documents/CirPetition.pdf

2. Get as many signatures as you can on both petitions over the next 2 weeks

3. Sending them in to the address at the bottom of the petition form as soon as possible - but at the latest by Monday May 12. (Even forms only half filled should still be sent in as soon as)

4. PLEASE FORWARD THIS ON AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO COLLECT SIGNATURES.

Thanks for your efforts.

Count on Anti-Smacking Petition Labelled ‘Incredibly Dodgy’

Family First Media Release 29 April 2008

HUNDREDS OF PETITION FORMS DOWNLOADED TODAY
Family First NZ is labeling the counting of the signatures on the anti-smacking petition as 'incredibly dodgy'.

"Despite a very thorough audit of a sample of signatures, the government statistician has applied a further margin of error against the number of signatures," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "But margins of error go both ways, plus and minus, and it completely ignores the purpose and function of the previous thorough audit process."

"This would suggest that there is an agenda to try and 'kill' the petition."

Family First is still completely confident of success with the petition despite this setback and says the websites hosting the petition forms have been inundated with downloads of the petition form today.

"We have had almost 300 downloads just today on just the Family First website, and many emails requesting the forms," says Mr McCoskrie. "That is similar with other organisations hosting the forms."

"Despite the hopes and dreams of Labour and the Greens, this issue is not going to go away any time soon. Parents who opposed this law will get to be heard – no matter how hard they make it."

FACT SHEET
How many signatures were submitted?
324,216
How many were needed to force the referendum?
Only 285.027
How many were found invalid after the thorough audit?
The government statistician ( our emphasis added ) took a sample of almost 30,000 and found an 'invalid' rate of about 13% (pretty good considering Norm Wither's law and order petition had 20% invalid rate).
So that means 324,216 less 13% invalid = 282,067 - a shortfall of about 3,000?
Yes - that's what you would expect
But they're saying that the shortfall is 18,027; 15,000 greater than the sample would indicate
That's what the government statistician ( our emphasis added) is saying
So how did he get the extra invalid signatures numbering 15,000?
That's the million dollar question. They have literally plucked a figure out of the air (arguing 'margin of error' and despite their already thorough audit), said it's their 'best estimate' - and under the Act, they don't have to be accountable for how they came to that figure.

Do the organisers have extra time to collect the 15,000 shortfall
YES! 2 more months.
Have any more signatures been collected since the previous cut-off date?
Yes! Almost 20,000 (including 6,500 at the V8 races last weekend - gotta love those petrol-heads!)
So you have enough to force the Referendum?
You would think so, but based on the confusing and suspicious calculations made by the government statistician ( our emphasis added ) we will collect a buffer of 20,000 more signatures to be totally sure.

Clerk Reports on Petition: 20,000 signatures to go

"Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures" screams the headline on the TV3 news site.

NewstalkZB picks up the story, picking up on comments from Sue Bradford, the Green MP who introduced the Anti-Smacking bill. "The opponents of the "anti-smacking" law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum."

Stuff.co.nz presents a confused story, claiming that the petition organisers have been dealt a "major blow".

David Farrar at Kiwiblog tells it like it is.

"They needed 285,027 signatures valid signatures. They got 324,216 but a sample found around 11% were not able to be found on the electoral roll plus 1% illegible and 0.5% duplicates. This is about normal off mory.

So their valid signatures were calculated as 269,500 so they need 16,000 more valid signatures which is probably 20,000 more total signatures to be safe.

I suspect the Government is nervous about having every voter reminded of the law they are primarily identified with, at the very point at which they are voting."

Meanwhile, Bob McCoskrie doesn't have any time for the media hype, and gets to the main point, which is:

"the success of the petition demanding a public referendum on the highly unpopular and extremist anti-smacking law shows that politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of NZ parents."

The Clerk of the House has disqualified 16,294 signatures - this comes as no surprise, despite the wild exaggerations from the mainstream media. In fact, this is a relatively low number of signatures to be crossed out, as we see in an excerpt from this article (23 Feb 08) from the Section 59 blog:

"In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither's 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures."

"We have already collected an additional 20,000 signatures" says Larry Baldock in his Press Release, 29 April 2008, “We were always concerned about the hurdles to be crossed in the audit process, said Mr Baldock, and for that reason we continued collecting signatures after we handed in the 324,511 signatures on Feb 29th."

Click here to download the petition form. If you haven't already, sign it, get your friends and family to sign it, and then send it to the address on the bottom of the form.

Petition calling for referendum on anti smacking law fall shorts by about 15000

This from Stuff.co.nz My comments in italics

Organisers of a petition to force a smacking referendum have been dealt a major blow after failing to gather enough signatures. No it is not a "major blow" we have two more months to make up the difference.

They now have two more months to collect enough signatures.

The petition needed 285,027 (Stuff stuffed up and got the wrong number in there article) signatures to force a referendum but fell short after a number were excluded because they were either illegible, the signatory's date of birth could not be confirmed, or involved people who signed multiple times.

In a statement, the Office of the Clerk said an audit of signatures found that no more than 269,500 were eligible. That is a shortfall of about 15,500 signatures.

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskie appeared confident that any shortfall would easily be made up in the two months available.

He said politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of parents.

"The passing of the anti-smacking law by most of our politicians last year was an act of breathtaking arrogance which ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them to represent them in the making of our laws."

The petition by Sheryl Savill asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

If the organisers succeed in collecting the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible electors they will be able to force a referendum at the next election, though its results will be non-binding.

________________________________________
If you haven't signed the petition yet and would like to, please go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz and print it then sign it and send it to the address on the website.

Clearing up Confusion over Referendum Process

As per my last post, there is obviously a level of confusion over the future of the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking Law. Below I have a copy of the Referendum Process from the Parliament website (you can download a PDF version by clicking here). I have added some comments to the chart. I'm just focussing on the top petition question,

"Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"

Some people have been unsure of what the question for the Referendum means. It is saying, "should a smack be illegal?" And my answer, and the answer of the aproximately 70% plus New Zealanders opposed to this draconian home-invasion law will be a most definite NO.

Click here for a Press Release from Larry Baldock (Petition Organiser), where he comments on the issue.

Referendum Scaremongering from the Media

"Thousands of pro-smacking signatures invalid" - blares the headline on the NewstalkZB website. Firstly, it is absolutely normal in any petition, for a percentage of signatures to be declared invalid. Secondly, what is this reference to "pro-smacking signatures?" The question asked on the petition, "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand" is as much pro-smacking as Sue Bradford is pro-smacking. The article continues, stating:

"It appears a decision on whether there will be a public referendum on the anti-smacking law will come down to the wire... ...it has been discovered that thousands of the signatures are invalid and there may not be enough to reach the required level." - NewstalkZB, 24 April

TV3 joins in the scaremongering, with the following statement:

"Opponents of the law that bans smacking are waiting anxiously to find out whether they have collected enough valid signatures on a petition to force a citizens-initiated referendum." - TV3, 24 April

Neither of these two statements are correct. The law states that, following the counting of the signatures, the petition organiser is granted an extra two months to collect the number of signatures which has been found to be lacking. In this case, the number of signatures lacking is estimated to be about 3,000. Larry Baldock will have a good buffer of signatures by now, and when the Clerk tells us how many signatures we are short of (or in excess of) the required number, it will not be a problem.

Petition calling for referendum on "anti-smacking" law results unclear

It is unclear whether we have gained enough signatures on the petition calling for a referendum on the 'anti-smacking' law to have it put on the ballot paper.

The Kiwi Party leader put out this press release explaining the results.

Kiwi Party Leader and anti-smacking petition organiser Larry Baldock confirmed today that the preliminary results from Sheryl Savill’s petition to force a referendum on the question, ‘should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in NZ?’ was going to be very close to being just under or over the required threshold.

A total of 324,316 signatures were handed in on Feb 29th. To succeed in forcing a referendum it is required to have the certified signatures of 10% of those enrolled on the electoral role which on that day was 285,027. That would therefore require a success rate of 87.88% from the audit process undertaken by the Chief Registrar of Electors. A random sample of 29,501 signatures was taken and checked individually against the electoral role with 25,754 qualifying as certified correct.

Mr Baldock said “If I did my own simple maths on those figures we would then estimate that we had a success rate of 87.29%

“However I am informed by the Clerk that the Government Statistician needs 90 hours to complete a very complicated mathematical formula to officially ascertain the number of correct signatures. I have no idea why this must take so long and whether there will be any great variation from my simple maths. It begins to look like the Duckworth-Lewis system of determining the results in rain shortened One Day Cricket matches, and we all know how they turn out, usually in the other teams favour! said Mr Baldock.

The final result must be given to the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than next Tuesday April 29th by the Clerk of the House.

_________________________________________

So if you take 87.29% of the 324316 signatures collected we get 283095 correct signatures. That is 1935 signatures short. Lets see what the Clerk has to say on Tuesday.
_____________________________________
Also posted at NZ Debate

Anti-Smacking Law Now Proved to Criminalise Good Parents

Family First Media Release 10 April 2008

Family First NZ says that the charging of a Glen Innes man which was subsequently dismissed in the Auckland District Court today is evidence that good parents are victims of the anti-smacking law, a law which has done nothing to stem rates of real child abuse.

"The lawyer representing the father is agreeing with Family First's original assertions that good and loving fathers (and mothers) would be victims of this ideologically flawed law, that members of families would use it against other members, and that supporters of Bradford's anti-smacking law have simply abused child abuse laws," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Family First has already publicized many cases where good parents have come under the suspicion and investigation of CYF and police for light smacking, or not even smacking at all.

"As well as the many cases of good parents being investigated, here we have perfect evidence of wasted police resources and time and a good family impacted by badly drafted legislation resulting in a good father being charged and dragged through court."

"It is sad that it comes in a week where a step-father has been charged with the murder of 22-month-old Tokoroa boy Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn, a woman has been charged with the murder of ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa from Manurewa, a father has been charged with the murder of Otahuhu two-month-old Tahani Mahomed from Otahuhu last December, and two men have already pleaded guilty to the gang-related drive-by shooting of Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua," says Mr McCoskrie.

"Sue Bradford was right. The anti-smacking law has done nothing to stop child abuse."

Family First is demanding that the anti-smacking law be amended to protect good parenting, and that resources, policing and policy is targeted at the real causes of child abuse. Family First's 5-point Action Plan can be viewed at www.stoptheabuse.org.nz.

"The promises made by Helen Clark and John Key have tragically, especially for this family but also for all NZ parents, shown the law to be severely deficient," says Mr McCoskrie.

UK: Couple turned down as foster parents for smacking policy

this from www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk 9 April 2008

A Christian couple have been barred from fostering because they occasionally smack their own daughter as "a last resort".

David and Heather Bowen, of Whitmore Road, Taunton, say they would never smack a foster child.

But they were rejected because of their discipline policy for their own child, Emma, 9.

Mrs Bowen, 47, a volunteer helper at Wellsprings Primary School, which Emma attends, said: "We've been open and honest - we smack Emma once or twice a year, but wouldn't smack a foster child.

"It's controlled, on the leg and legal.

"We sit her down and explain what she's done wrong. It's a last resort."

Click here to read the entire article

Anti-Smacking Bill hits California

This from www.mensnewsdaily.com April 4, 2008

California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber has introduced AB 2943 to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old in California. It is identical to last year's AB 755, which drew national attention.

The bill will ban "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, [or] punching." The penalties in the bill, which can be seen here, are fairly substantial. A few thoughts:

1) I don't believe in and do not practice physical discipline of my kids

2) The bill represents another state intrusion on the family and parenting rights, which is already a problem.

3) As with any government policy related to the family, there is the definite possibility of anti-male bias in the law's application. Bystanders, police officers, judges and juries may well see a mother who spanks as a poor, overburdened woman trying to control her out-of-control kids, while viewing a father who spanks as abusive.

Lenin perceptively said "Only weak governments need strong measures." I think it is often true that only weak parents--or parents who've been temporarily placed in a position of weakness--need "strong measures" like spanking or other forms of physical discipline. However, I do believe there can be extraordinary situations where spanking a young child is appropriate.

An example from my youth--my mother, my younger sister and I were near a crowded, busy street and my sister--probably age 3 or 4 at the time--bolted out into the street. My mother quickly got her and then spanked her--not because my mom was mad or scared (though I'm sure she was), but because she wanted to give my sister a quick and memorable lesson to prevent her from ever bolting out into the street again like that. I don't know that I would've handled it the same way, but it's certainly a defensible reaction, and hardly something worthy of government sanction.

Hypocrisy from Peter Dunne

Hypocrisy Again From Mr Dunne

Peter Dunne is in trouble after saying that the people should decide in a referendum on MMP. This is very inconsistent as he would hate to see a referendum on the "anti-smacking" law.

Larry Baldock picked up on it and put out this press release.

_____________________________________________________

Peter Dunne is reported in the Dominion Post as saying it is "time for the people to decide." He refers to the need to have a referendum on the review of the MMP system of New Zealand politics.

Mr Dunne fails to acknowledge that there is already a referendum waiting in the wings. It has the numbers - over 600,000 combined signatures from the voting public of New Zealand, calling for:

a.. A referendum on the controversial anti-smacking laws. b.. The establishment of a Royal Commission into indentifying the real causes of family breakdown, dysfunction and child abuse" says Larry Baldock, leader of Kiwi Party.

"Let's have one referendum at a time. The people have called for it and good democratic governance would not stand in the way of it being held."

Mr Dunne, in his apparent new found respect for 'the people to decide,' can now declare his intention to respect the referendum on repealing the anti-smacking bill he voted for, in order to be legitimately consistent".

Mr Dunne suggests that "MMP is working out in practice to be a little different from what was intended..."

The Kiwi Party suggests that is because party leaders like Mr Dunne have ignored the will of those that elected them and have signed up to support a Government ideology that does not have the support of the vast majority of New Zealanders.

There are many voters who see the passing of controversial laws as 'somewhat different than what they intended their chosen party to vote for'.

"Yes, "It's time", Mr Dunne to let the people to decide - so let's see how the citizens of New Zealand respond to the Referendum right in front of them".

"We can then monitor the politicians response in due course". Says Mr Baldock.

Presentation of Petition for Referendum

The Cartoon they didn't publish...

click for a larger version

This cartoon was created by Stan Blanch in response to The Press's two highly offensive cartoons, targeting Family First and Larry Baldock, and accusing them of being pro child-abuse. When you have to sink to the level of making a joke of child abuse, there is something terribly wrong. Or of slandering - yes, that word - slandering such a man as Bob McCoskrie who has led the charge with the Five Point Action Plan to combat child abuse in New Zealand. You can view the two cartoons below...

The Press is not worth the paper it is written on.

Smack should be ok - The Herald

from The Herald, Tuesday February 26, 2008 By Sacha Cobur...

I agree with Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock. Eight words which churn my stomach as I write them. When left-leaning, social liberals like me are forced to align with the fundies speaking in tongues and organising petitions, you know our little country at the bottom of the world has gone mad.

I want to smack my daughter. At least twice today I'm likely to threaten it and may even make meaningful preparations to carry it out. Send her to her room. Get the wooden spoon out of the drawer. Enough to be arrested for an attempted smack, I'd have thought. Is it wrong to fantasise about a night in the lock-up?

"You mean that in solitary I'd be by myself for 23 hours in a row?"

Smacking my son was a parenting strategy of last resort and was immediately effective when dealing with defiance and dangerous situations. I've never smacked in anger and never without issuing a final warning first. I'm a text-book smacker. Pin-up girl has a certain ring to it.

But now, with my precious Portia, aged 2 years 8 months, my tool box is looking a little empty.

"No," she says. "I won't put my seat belt back on." Try reasoning, Aunty Sue B suggests. "If we crash, you'll get hurt."

"No, I didn't."

Try praising the good behaviour, says Aunty Cindy K.

"Mummy loves it when you wear your seatbelt."

"No! I love Daddy!"

Wait out the bad behaviour, advises Aunty Dianne L.

Good idea until my phone rings: "Hello Sacha, are you coming to get your son from school today? It's 5.30pm and the cleaners are going home."

"Not yet," I reply. "Just wearing Portia down, should be there by midnight."

Scare her, suggests my guardian demon.

"If you don't put it back on, tonight I'll close your bedroom door and leave the light off." Cue screaming, but still no seat belt. What kind of parental monster uses fear of the dark as a legitimate tool?

The problem for me is that I love the law and the democratic process. As a lawyer, I understand the benefits of obeying the law and the potential consequences of disregarding it. I want to parent within the law and I want to be able to use smacking as one of many parenting tools.

I'm a bloody good parent; well-read, patient, on the Board of Trustees even. I know that clothes driers are for clothes only and that I shouldn't leave my child with the man next door who's on bail awaiting trial for manslaughter. I understand the food pyramid and surely I get brownie points with the Greens for breastfeeding both babies past 12 months.

I don't believe smacking is for every parent or every child. I don't believe that it's an effective tool once children get beyond four or five. I wouldn't insist that you smack your child, but I don't believe Parliament fixes anything by taking away my right to smack mine.

Sue Bradford told us that we had to stop treating our children as property. They are people too, with their own minds and their own rights. Illuminating stuff. But the police officer who pulled me over and asked why my child was wandering willy-nilly around the backseat didn't buy it. I am apparently totally responsible for her well-being and behaviour, but not to be trusted when it comes to making parenting decisions about how to develop her sense of right and wrong.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the whole smacking debate is the lack of intellectual rigour evident on both sides of the issue. To continue the rhetoric about child abuse and smacking having any casual link is absurd - as all of us who were smacked-not-beaten as children can attest. And to suggest on the other hand that God gave us the right to smack is equally offensive - he also okayed some other pretty dodgy ideas.

The obvious victims remain. Children who are violently abused in their homes are no more protected than they were before the law change. But my own daughter is undoubtedly a victim too and our whole family suffers the consequences of her strong sense of self-above-all-else.

She has, in the past six months, learned that there are few sanctions I can impose on her that are meaningful enough to deter her from her intended course of action. She knows that if she screams loudly and for long enough she might not get her way but, by golly, there'll be a flurry of action around her. In short, she has learnt that behaving badly works.

How ironic if, in years to come, the lack of corrective smacking in childhood is raised in mitigation of criminal offending.

Petition Target Reached

Thankyou to all of you who helped collect signatures on the petition calling for a referendum on the question...

"Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"

We now have 322,752 signatures on this petition, meaning that there will be a referendum.

When Sue Bradford realised that we were going to make the target, she told the media that she would be watching carefully to make sure that no parties attempted to support the referendum. Now that we have the numbers, she has said...

"it is unlikely that any government would go back to a situation where the law promotes the hitting of children and babies."

And she's absolutely right. Firstly, if the law was repealed back to it's initial state, it would not be "promoting" anything, merely allowing it. Secondly, she brings out the tired old phrase "hitting of children and babies". I am utterly opposed to anyone hitting a child or a baby, however I am able to tell the difference between a hit - a beating, and a loving smack. So can 83% of New Zealanders.

---

A word from Bob McCoscrie of Family First who has tirelessly worked for the referendum.

"Thanks to the efforts of people like you, there IS going to be a Referendum at the upcoming general election on the extremist anti-smacking bill which has targeted good parents and has failed miserably to target the real causes of child abuse.

The reason we have 'upped' the target?
In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither's 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures. While we don't expect anywhere near as many disqualified signatures, it is beneficial to have a 'buffer' of signatures! Submitting well over the legally required 286,000 signatures would also drive the point home that this legislation is hugely unpopular and ineffective. (that's why we originally set the target as 300,000)."

---

The Press Conference where the number of signatures was announced

Huge Opposition to Anti-Smacking Law Confirmed

Wednesday, 20 February 2008, 9:34 am
Press Release: Family First Lobby

Smacking Research Confirms Huge Opposition to Anti-Smacking Law

Family First NZ is not surprised by the findings of a Research NZ poll which has found continued massive opposition to the anti-smacking law.

According to the poll, 74% believe that parents should be able to smack children – an equivalent rate to 12 months ago (73%) when a similar poll was done.

"This is consistent with all other polling which has averaged around the mid 70's low 80's percent opposition to this extremist law," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ."These 74% of NZ'ers are not the 'thrashers and bashers' of children as suggested by the Prime Minister. They are not condoning child abuse as offensively implied by supporters of the law. They are teachers, social workers, mums and dads, grandparents, police officers, school principals, early childhood educators, doctors, counsellors, and youthworkers who simply know that a smack is not child abuse, and that good parents should not be criminalised in their efforts to raise law-abiding and responsible citizens."

"The so-called compromise has quite clearly given parents no confidence or certainty."

"Last week the government announced $800,000 to tell parents that they are valued. 74% of parents would prefer a law change to an advertising campaign," says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First calls on all politicians to acknowledge the voice of NZ parents and to amend the law to that proposed (and consistently supported) by MP Chester Borrows so that light smacking is not a crime in NZ.

"It is also ironic that this poll has been released the same day as a book entitled 'Unreasonable Force'. The huge majority of NZ'ers are rejecting the reasonableness of this anti-smacking law," says Mr McCoskrie.