New Zealand will have its say in an upcoming referendum on the 'Anti-smacking' law.
The question that will be asked is "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
I ask you to vote NO for 2 reasons.
1, Good parents needs protecting. The law passed by Sue Bradford wasn't about stopping child abuse, it was about getting rid of parental authority in the home. Sue Bradford even said this herself.
2, we need to tackle the real causes of child abuse. What better way to sort out this terrible issue than to have a Royal commission which all New Zealanders can get behind and tackle this issue together.
The referendum question is not ambiguous. Yes it could have been written better, but so could anything. Lets get behind this referendum and lets wake the politicians up!
VOTE NO is the only way to do the above things. If you want to criminalise every good parent up and down this country go ahead and vote yes. It is your choice. But if you really care about good parents, the issue of child abuse and letting parents bring up there kids without government intervention then VOTE NO.
VOTE NO !
You can join the Facebook group by clicking here
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Genuine Abuse Ignored
Here is yet another case of CYF and the police failing to take action when a child is seriously abused.
Teacher's pleas for abused child ignored
While the mother is facing charges of assault of the wheelchair-bound boy two of the boy’s siblings are still with the mother. CYF workers had commented "poor mum she's not coping". The police took seven months to take a formal statement from the teacher.
These are the same authorities who are meant to use discretion when investigation complaint about parents using reasonable force when physically disciplining their children.
The is not the first case of authorities failing to act appropriately is cases of serious abuse. If the anti-smacking fanatics were seriously concerned about child abuse they would be comment on this case. Would I be unreasonable in thinking there may be considerable sexism the way the law is applied in cases of child abuse? They certainly looked at the situation differently when a father was involved.
Mr Key the law is not working. If you genuinely care about child abuse as opposed to scoring political points with some so called compromise you will change your criteria for having the law amended. If the police and CYF workers are too busy to look at serious genuine child abuse they should not be wasting their time investigating trivial breaches of this anti-parental correction law.
The public have a right to know what excuse police and CYF workers have for not acting sooner.
Teacher's pleas for abused child ignored
4:00AM Sunday Jun 14, 2009
By Rachel Grunwell
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett wants answers after social workers took four months to remove a wheelchair-bound boy from his home following allegations he was was being beaten, burned with cigarettes and starved.
While the mother is facing charges of assault of the wheelchair-bound boy two of the boy’s siblings are still with the mother. CYF workers had commented "poor mum she's not coping". The police took seven months to take a formal statement from the teacher.
These are the same authorities who are meant to use discretion when investigation complaint about parents using reasonable force when physically disciplining their children.
The is not the first case of authorities failing to act appropriately is cases of serious abuse. If the anti-smacking fanatics were seriously concerned about child abuse they would be comment on this case. Would I be unreasonable in thinking there may be considerable sexism the way the law is applied in cases of child abuse? They certainly looked at the situation differently when a father was involved.
Mr Key the law is not working. If you genuinely care about child abuse as opposed to scoring political points with some so called compromise you will change your criteria for having the law amended. If the police and CYF workers are too busy to look at serious genuine child abuse they should not be wasting their time investigating trivial breaches of this anti-parental correction law.
The public have a right to know what excuse police and CYF workers have for not acting sooner.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Skewed View of Parenting from Yes Vote Campaign
The Yes Vote campaign has some advice for parents on their little blog...
rage: noun. Violent, explosive anger; A fit of anger.
Heck, how many parents do you know who rage with anger against their children? Whether they act on that rage is beside the point: what would cause parents to be filled with rage against their children in the first place? Surely a word such as frustration, dissapointment or annoyance would be more fitting?
Parenting tip: Nip anger in the bud... take steps to control your own rage.
rage: noun. Violent, explosive anger; A fit of anger.
Heck, how many parents do you know who rage with anger against their children? Whether they act on that rage is beside the point: what would cause parents to be filled with rage against their children in the first place? Surely a word such as frustration, dissapointment or annoyance would be more fitting?
Vote No Blog Launched
The Vote No blog has been launched...
A must-read if you want to stay up to date with news on the referendum.
A must-read if you want to stay up to date with news on the referendum.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
John Boscawen's Private Member's Bill
The following bill would add some clarity for parents. The poorly reported case of Jimmy Mason who was convicted for assault on a child does nothing to clarify matters. We do not know whether he was convicted for flicking his son’s ear which is technically assault or punching his son in the face.
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill
Member’s Bill
Explanatory note
The purpose of this bill is to repeal and replace section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 so that: parents, and those in the place of parents, are no longer committing a criminal offence if they use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force for correction; parents, and those in the place of parents, have certainty about what the law does and does not permit when they are controlling or correcting their children; and an explicit reliance on Police discretion is no longer used in an attempt to protect parents from the consequences of prohibiting the use of reasonable force for correction.
Parents have obligations to their children, including an obligation to teach them and provide guidance. Sometimes this requires parents to correct their children’s behaviour for the children’s own benefit, to help them grow into maturity. Article 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a signatory, states that "States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents … to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention."
In many cases, parental guidance and correction will be non-physical. However, in some cases a parent may reasonably decide that correcting their children’s behaviour requires some degree of physical action. In these cases, section 59 says that parents are committing the crime of assault. Section 59(2) says that "Nothing … justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."
This ban applies to any physical contact by a parent where the intention is to correct their child’s behaviour. This includes, for example, lifting up an unwilling child to put them into their room for "time out" as well as giving a light "smack."
As a result, the law can prevent parents from parenting effectively. It is inconsistent with society’s standards for good parenting; opinion polls consistently reveal public agreement that parents should be able to use a mild degree of physical correction.
This bill will allow parents, and those in the place of parents, to use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour, while providing clear limits on what is reasonable. Force will be unreasonable if it causes injury that is "more than transitory and trifling," if it is "inflicted by any weapon, tool, or other implement," or if it is inflicted by "cruel or degrading" means. Courts are not limited from finding that other types or instances of force are unreasonable. The limitations on what is reasonable apply to corrective and non-corrective force.
However, there are circumstances where a parent may reasonably use force in a way that causes their child some harm to prevent a greater harm, for example by knocking them out of the path of an oncoming vehicle. So that the law does not rule this use of force unreasonable, this bill provides that the automatic prohibitions on force causing injury that is "more than transitory and trifling," or force that involves the use of a "weapon, tool, or other implement," will not apply where the person applying the force believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to prevent death or serious harm to the child or another person.
Section 59 is intended to provide children with greater protection against violence and abuse. However, reasonable physical correction is not violent or abusive. Allowing parents to use reasonable physical correction, with clear limits on what is reasonable written into the law, will protect children from harm while offering parents appropriate legal protection.
Although section 59 bans physical correction, it is often unclear to parents whether using reasonable force is permitted or whether it breaks the law. This is because section 59(1) allows parents to use reasonable force to prevent certain types of behaviour and to perform "the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting." However, the distinction between prevention and correction is unclear in many cases. Preventing particular actions will often amount to correcting them, especially when the action and the prevention are repeated. This bill will remove that confusion by adding correction to the list of permitted purposes.
Section 59(4) also creates confusion with its reference to Police discretion. According to Members of Parliament, the intention of this subsection is to provide a safeguard against the consequences of banning reasonable physical correction, so that parents will not be "subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution" if they give their child a light "smack" to correct their behaviour. This leaves parents unsure about what is, in practice, permitted, and what standard they will be held to.
Citizens have a right to know what the law requires and not to be subject to arbitrary enforcement. This is part of the principle of the rule of law. Section 59 is inconsistent with this principle. It represents a failure by Parliament to make clear law that gives its citizens certainty about how they may act.
In addition, section 59(4) refers only to the Police. It does not apply to any other agency, such as Child, Youth and Family. These agencies may apply the letter of the law in their interactions with parents. It also does not apply to any private citizen who initiates a prosecution against a parent who has used reasonable force for correction.
This bill will remove the reliance on Police discretion, which will not be necessary when reasonable correction is permitted.
Clause by clause analysis
Clause 1 is the title clause.
Clause 2 provides that the Crimes Act 1961 is referred to as "the principal Act."
Clause 3 provides for the bill to come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
Clause 4 sets out the purpose of the bill.
Clause 5 repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and replaces it.
Clause 6 provides for consequential amendments to the Education Act 1989.
_____________________________________
John Boscawen
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill
Member’s Bill
Contents
Title
Principal Act
Commencement
Purpose
Reasonable parental control and correction
Consequential amendments to Education Act 1989
_______________________________________
The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:
1 Title
This Act is the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Act 2009.
2 Principal Act
In this Act, the Crimes Act 1961 is called "the principal Act."
3 Commencement
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
4 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act so that:
it is no longer a criminal offence for parents, and those in the place of parents, to use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children’s behaviour;
there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force;
parents, and those in the place of parents, have certainty about what the law does and does not permit when they are controlling or correcting their children;
an explicit reliance on Police discretion is no longer used in an attempt to protect parents from the consequences of prohibiting the use of reasonable force for correction.
5 Reasonable parental control and correction
(1) Section 59 is repealed, and the following section substituted:
"59 Reasonable parental control and correction
"(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (4), every person acting in
place of a parent of a child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
"(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
"(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
conduct that is prohibited by an enactment creating a criminal
offence; or
"(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
"(d) performing tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting; or
"(e) correcting the behaviour of the child.
"(2) Without limiting the circumstances in which the use of force may be found to
be unreasonable, subject to subsection (3) the use of force is unreasonable
if—
"(a) it causes the child to suffer injury that is more than transitory and trifling or materially contributes thereto; or
"(b) it is inflicted by any weapon, tool, or other implement; or
"(c) it is inflicted by any means that is cruel or degrading.
"(3) Subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) shall not apply in circumstances where the
person applying the force believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary to prevent death or serious harm to the child or another person.
"(4) Nothing in this section justifies the use of force towards a child in
contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989."
6 Consequential amendments to Education Act 1989
(1) Section 139A(1) of the Education Act 1989 is amended by inserting the words ", unless that person is a guardian of the student or child".
(2) Section 139A(2) of the Education Act 1989 is amended by inserting the words ", unless that person is a guardian of the student or child".
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill
Member’s Bill
Explanatory note
The purpose of this bill is to repeal and replace section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 so that: parents, and those in the place of parents, are no longer committing a criminal offence if they use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force for correction; parents, and those in the place of parents, have certainty about what the law does and does not permit when they are controlling or correcting their children; and an explicit reliance on Police discretion is no longer used in an attempt to protect parents from the consequences of prohibiting the use of reasonable force for correction.
Parents have obligations to their children, including an obligation to teach them and provide guidance. Sometimes this requires parents to correct their children’s behaviour for the children’s own benefit, to help them grow into maturity. Article 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a signatory, states that "States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents … to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention."
In many cases, parental guidance and correction will be non-physical. However, in some cases a parent may reasonably decide that correcting their children’s behaviour requires some degree of physical action. In these cases, section 59 says that parents are committing the crime of assault. Section 59(2) says that "Nothing … justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."
This ban applies to any physical contact by a parent where the intention is to correct their child’s behaviour. This includes, for example, lifting up an unwilling child to put them into their room for "time out" as well as giving a light "smack."
As a result, the law can prevent parents from parenting effectively. It is inconsistent with society’s standards for good parenting; opinion polls consistently reveal public agreement that parents should be able to use a mild degree of physical correction.
This bill will allow parents, and those in the place of parents, to use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour, while providing clear limits on what is reasonable. Force will be unreasonable if it causes injury that is "more than transitory and trifling," if it is "inflicted by any weapon, tool, or other implement," or if it is inflicted by "cruel or degrading" means. Courts are not limited from finding that other types or instances of force are unreasonable. The limitations on what is reasonable apply to corrective and non-corrective force.
However, there are circumstances where a parent may reasonably use force in a way that causes their child some harm to prevent a greater harm, for example by knocking them out of the path of an oncoming vehicle. So that the law does not rule this use of force unreasonable, this bill provides that the automatic prohibitions on force causing injury that is "more than transitory and trifling," or force that involves the use of a "weapon, tool, or other implement," will not apply where the person applying the force believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to prevent death or serious harm to the child or another person.
Section 59 is intended to provide children with greater protection against violence and abuse. However, reasonable physical correction is not violent or abusive. Allowing parents to use reasonable physical correction, with clear limits on what is reasonable written into the law, will protect children from harm while offering parents appropriate legal protection.
Although section 59 bans physical correction, it is often unclear to parents whether using reasonable force is permitted or whether it breaks the law. This is because section 59(1) allows parents to use reasonable force to prevent certain types of behaviour and to perform "the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting." However, the distinction between prevention and correction is unclear in many cases. Preventing particular actions will often amount to correcting them, especially when the action and the prevention are repeated. This bill will remove that confusion by adding correction to the list of permitted purposes.
Section 59(4) also creates confusion with its reference to Police discretion. According to Members of Parliament, the intention of this subsection is to provide a safeguard against the consequences of banning reasonable physical correction, so that parents will not be "subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution" if they give their child a light "smack" to correct their behaviour. This leaves parents unsure about what is, in practice, permitted, and what standard they will be held to.
Citizens have a right to know what the law requires and not to be subject to arbitrary enforcement. This is part of the principle of the rule of law. Section 59 is inconsistent with this principle. It represents a failure by Parliament to make clear law that gives its citizens certainty about how they may act.
In addition, section 59(4) refers only to the Police. It does not apply to any other agency, such as Child, Youth and Family. These agencies may apply the letter of the law in their interactions with parents. It also does not apply to any private citizen who initiates a prosecution against a parent who has used reasonable force for correction.
This bill will remove the reliance on Police discretion, which will not be necessary when reasonable correction is permitted.
Clause by clause analysis
Clause 1 is the title clause.
Clause 2 provides that the Crimes Act 1961 is referred to as "the principal Act."
Clause 3 provides for the bill to come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
Clause 4 sets out the purpose of the bill.
Clause 5 repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and replaces it.
Clause 6 provides for consequential amendments to the Education Act 1989.
_____________________________________
John Boscawen
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill
Member’s Bill
Contents
Title
Principal Act
Commencement
Purpose
Reasonable parental control and correction
Consequential amendments to Education Act 1989
_______________________________________
The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:
1 Title
This Act is the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Act 2009.
2 Principal Act
In this Act, the Crimes Act 1961 is called "the principal Act."
3 Commencement
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
4 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act so that:
it is no longer a criminal offence for parents, and those in the place of parents, to use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children’s behaviour;
there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force;
parents, and those in the place of parents, have certainty about what the law does and does not permit when they are controlling or correcting their children;
an explicit reliance on Police discretion is no longer used in an attempt to protect parents from the consequences of prohibiting the use of reasonable force for correction.
5 Reasonable parental control and correction
(1) Section 59 is repealed, and the following section substituted:
"59 Reasonable parental control and correction
"(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (4), every person acting in
place of a parent of a child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
"(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
"(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
conduct that is prohibited by an enactment creating a criminal
offence; or
"(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
"(d) performing tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting; or
"(e) correcting the behaviour of the child.
"(2) Without limiting the circumstances in which the use of force may be found to
be unreasonable, subject to subsection (3) the use of force is unreasonable
if—
"(a) it causes the child to suffer injury that is more than transitory and trifling or materially contributes thereto; or
"(b) it is inflicted by any weapon, tool, or other implement; or
"(c) it is inflicted by any means that is cruel or degrading.
"(3) Subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) shall not apply in circumstances where the
person applying the force believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary to prevent death or serious harm to the child or another person.
"(4) Nothing in this section justifies the use of force towards a child in
contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989."
6 Consequential amendments to Education Act 1989
(1) Section 139A(1) of the Education Act 1989 is amended by inserting the words ", unless that person is a guardian of the student or child".
(2) Section 139A(2) of the Education Act 1989 is amended by inserting the words ", unless that person is a guardian of the student or child".
Monday, May 04, 2009
ACT - Mt Albert by election
ACT is the only party in Parliament which opposes the anti parental correction legislation. Before the last election I knew ACT opposed this legislation. However, I was unsure what priority ACT would give to amending this anti family law. A short while ago John Boscawen made it clear ACT was serious about restoring parental rights with his private member’s bill.
If like the majority of voters who still oppose this law now is your chance to make a difference particularly if you live in the Auckland area. If you live in the Mt Albert electorate your vote for ACT will help send the message to the government that they ignore the wishes of the vast majority of parents at their peril.
If you live outside the electorate but are in greater Auckland you can still make a difference by volunteering to help ACT in their election campaign in Mt Albert. If you live outside greater Auckland a financial contribution would be most helpful and much appreciated.
If like the majority of voters who still oppose this law now is your chance to make a difference particularly if you live in the Auckland area. If you live in the Mt Albert electorate your vote for ACT will help send the message to the government that they ignore the wishes of the vast majority of parents at their peril.
If you live outside the electorate but are in greater Auckland you can still make a difference by volunteering to help ACT in their election campaign in Mt Albert. If you live outside greater Auckland a financial contribution would be most helpful and much appreciated.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A very simple question
cross-posted from Big News, 14 April 2009
Bill English was asked on Radio Live today whether a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction. He was asked at least six times. Here's the transcript. It's a classic.
Radio Live Breakfast Show - 14 April 09
So this is the position of Bill English. Laws should be enforced. The smacking law should be complied with. A smack as part of good parental correction is against the law. There is no evidence that, quote, "law abiding parents are being wrong(ly) prosecuted", unquote, for breaking the law when lightly smacking their kids.
What Radio Live should have asked is this: If "law abiding parents" can smack their kids for corrective purposes, how can law abiding parents be wrongly prosecuted, given correction is explicitly a crime?
Bill English was asked on Radio Live today whether a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction. He was asked at least six times. Here's the transcript. It's a classic.
Radio Live Breakfast Show - 14 April 09
INTERVIEWER: The Labour Party seemed to have amended their position on Section 59, the smacking legislation. What do you think? Should a smack be allowed as part of a good - as good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, the Government's position hasn't changed since a compromise was done with the previous Labour Government. And the Prime Minister has said many times, as has the rest of the Government, that if there is evidence that law abiding parents are being wrong(ly)prosecuted inconsistent with the spirit of that law then we would look to change it. And has been - and there hasn't yet been considerable enough evidence to warrant changing it.
INTERVIEWER: Well, did you think - do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Well, look, I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land and needs to be enforced in a sensible way. And...
INTERVIEWER: But do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: I - I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land that should be enforced. If there is evidence that it is being enforced in instances where it's - where it's inappropriate because the event is
trivial or [indistinct]...
INTERVIEWER: No, no. Sorry, Minister, I just wanted to know whether you could answer that, that should - do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, it's a matter of complying with the law of the land.
INTERVIEWER: Right, it's a simple question, isn't it?
BILL ENGLISH: It's like asking whether the speed limit should be - whether you should drive at 120 kilometres an hour. The law - the law...
INTERVIEWER: Well, clearly you shouldn't.
BILL ENGLISH: That's right. Well, the law - the law, as it stands, is the law that should be enforced.
INTERVIEWER: Do you - do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental
correction? It's simple yes or no, isn't it?
Bill ENGLISH: Well, look, the law takes a stance about smacking and it gives the police some discretion about how they use their capacity to prosecute. If there is evidence that they are prosecuting people inappropriately, then that current government would look at changing the law.
So this is the position of Bill English. Laws should be enforced. The smacking law should be complied with. A smack as part of good parental correction is against the law. There is no evidence that, quote, "law abiding parents are being wrong(ly) prosecuted", unquote, for breaking the law when lightly smacking their kids.
What Radio Live should have asked is this: If "law abiding parents" can smack their kids for corrective purposes, how can law abiding parents be wrongly prosecuted, given correction is explicitly a crime?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Ammendment to Fix Bradfords "anti-smacking" law has been introduced
Amendment To Fix Broken Anti-Smacking Law
From the ACT party website
From the ACT party website
ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.
"My announcement coincides with yesterday's release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered," Mr Boscawen said.
"This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders - 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.
"While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.
"The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.
"In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children - something that ACT has consistently opposed.
"The Labour we know best' Government is out and National is now in. Perhaps we will now begin to see an end to the madness of the past nine years - where politicians saw fit to tell New Zealanders how to live their lives," Mr Boscawen said.
ENDS
___________________________________
This is great news! My full support to John Boscawen in his efforts.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
2009 Research, 83% NZers say Change Smacking Law
Press Release, Family First, 18 March 2009
Almost two years after the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law, more than 80% of NZ’ers still want the law changed and 77% say that the law won’t have any effect on our unacceptable child abuse rate.
These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ, following on from similar research in 2007 and 2008. The Curia Market Research poll surveyed 1,000 people, and also found huge confusion over the legal effect of the law.
83% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law (85% in 2008, 82% in 2007).
Key Findings:
83% say the law should be changed – only 13% say to keep it as is
77% says the law won’t help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ
Less than one third of respondents actually understand the law
“This is essentially the same question that will be put to NZ’ers in the Referendum at the end of July. The government can save $8 million of taxpayer funding towards the cost of running the Referendum during a recession, and amend the law now,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Respondents were also asked whether the new law makes it always illegal for parents to give their children a light smack. 55% said yes, 31% said no, and 14% didn’t know.
“This proves just how confusing the law is to parents and it is this confusion that is causing huge harm. Parents have been given conflicting messages by the promoters of the law, legal opinions have contradicted each other, and on top of that is police discretion but not CYF discretion to investigate.”
“Parents have a right to know whether they are parenting within the law or not. This law has just created confusion and as a result, good parents are being victimised,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Meanwhile, the rate of child abuse continues. This flawed law must be fixed and the real causes of child abuse confronted.”
The poll was conducted during the week beginning March 9, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.
Below are two graphs from the Press Release
Almost two years after the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law, more than 80% of NZ’ers still want the law changed and 77% say that the law won’t have any effect on our unacceptable child abuse rate.
These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ, following on from similar research in 2007 and 2008. The Curia Market Research poll surveyed 1,000 people, and also found huge confusion over the legal effect of the law.
83% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law (85% in 2008, 82% in 2007).
Key Findings:
83% say the law should be changed – only 13% say to keep it as is
77% says the law won’t help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ
Less than one third of respondents actually understand the law
“This is essentially the same question that will be put to NZ’ers in the Referendum at the end of July. The government can save $8 million of taxpayer funding towards the cost of running the Referendum during a recession, and amend the law now,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Respondents were also asked whether the new law makes it always illegal for parents to give their children a light smack. 55% said yes, 31% said no, and 14% didn’t know.
“This proves just how confusing the law is to parents and it is this confusion that is causing huge harm. Parents have been given conflicting messages by the promoters of the law, legal opinions have contradicted each other, and on top of that is police discretion but not CYF discretion to investigate.”
“Parents have a right to know whether they are parenting within the law or not. This law has just created confusion and as a result, good parents are being victimised,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Meanwhile, the rate of child abuse continues. This flawed law must be fixed and the real causes of child abuse confronted.”
The poll was conducted during the week beginning March 9, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.
Below are two graphs from the Press Release
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
How should one vote to change the anti-smacking legislation?
Andy has started a topic Christian Vote 2008. He starts a new blog for it and lists his recommendations for how Christians should vote. This blog is about Section 59 and restoring parental authority so I will say how I am likely to vote and why and recommend how others - Christian or not should vote to restore parental authority.
I will be voting on one issue and one issue only and that is which party has a policy of restoring parental authority. Although I will be focusing on the one issue I will consider other things about the party. Firstly, I will consider what the likelihood of the party making it into Parliament is. Secondly, I will consider the honesty of the party leaders.
Parental authority
Obviously, the right of parents to use reasonable physical force to discipline children for purposes of correction is a major consideration. The second issue for me is right of both parents to be informed when authorities know that their underage daughter is pregnant and certainly before an abortion is arranged. A third issue for me is harm minimisation being taught to children in school in relation to drugs or sex. It is sending mixed messages to children to say do not take drugs and delay sex till you are older but if you choose to ignore this advice here is how to do it.
Other issues
Some people who signed the petition may have other issues that they consider far more important than parental authority like the economy, crime or other moral issues like abortion or euthanasia. This article is not for them but for those whose number one issue is parental authority. Large parties hate individuals or pressure groups that focus on one issue. They keep trying to change the subject and you keep saying I did not come to speak to you about that issue but this issue and that is how I will base my vote.
Parties opposed to the removal of Section 59
The parties opposed to the removal of Section 59 are The Family Party, The Kiwi Party, The Pacific Party and ACT. There may be very small parties unlikely to attract a thousand votes that oppose the removal of Section 59 but I will ignore them.
The Family Party
The Family Party is strongly opposed to the removal of Section 59. It also in favour of legislation so parents would be notified before their underage daughters have an abortion arranged for them. The downside is the low likelihood of them making it into Parliament. The chance of them making the 5% is near zero. A spoke to Richard Lewis a while ago and he told me of internal polls in key electorates. I cannot recall the figures he gave me so I will not guess but they were certainly better than the chances of gaining the 5% nationally. Hopefully, a Family Party member will give us an update.
Another downside for me is the Family Party’s links to the Destiny Church and Bishop Brian Tamaki. I personally do not like the idea of someone heading a church and gaining so much personal wealth from many families in his church who would be struggling financially. Having said that, my vote will be going the the Family Party unless National listens to reason.
The Kiwi Party
Like The Family Party, The Kiwi Party is strongly opposed to the removal of Section 59 and is in favour of parental notification in the case of underage pregnancy. According to independent polling the chance of the Kiwi Party making 5% nationally or Larry winning Tauranga is virtually nil.
The downside with the Kiwi Party is simply whether they operate in an ethical manner. Like Andy, I am very concerned about the way they used signatures and addresses from their unsuccessful petition has been used to solicit votes and funds. Andy in his Christian Vote 2008 Blog states why he thinks this is wrong. I agree with his reasons and have few of my own. I will not go into them all here but will say this action has been enough to make me change my vote and I have been a Kiwi Party member from the start.
The Kiwi Party claims they have had good legal advice and what they have done is legal. This may or may not be the case – time will tell. I still think it was quite wrong for them to have done this. Firstly, I started collecting signatures after meeting Craig Hill of Unity for Liberty. That is a group opposed to the anti-smacking legislation but non political. This is but one group that helped in the collection of signatures opposing this anti-family legislation. When Craig started his group the collection of signatures had slowed right down. In my opinion the goal would not have been achieved without Craig. It definitely would not have been achieved without the effort and money from a lot of groups not connected to the Kiwi Party.
The second issue is that I gave an assurance to many people particularly women who did not like to give details like their full address and age that this information would only be used by government employees that would check the details to make sure they are on the voters role. Their names and details have been copied in to PDF files and circulated to members of the Kiwi Party in lots of a few hundred to post with letter soliciting funds and votes (click here for an example).
How secure is this information? If a disgruntled former member of the Kiwi Party put these files on a website would they be breaching the Privacy ACT? Would the person who sent out the PDF files be in breach or both? I wonder if their legal advisors considered the above scenario. I am not suggesting anyone do so?
The point I am making is that the Kiwi Party has made a liar out me and many others in the assurance I have given many people signing the petitions.
The Pacific Party
Like the other two parties, The Pacific Party is strongly opposed to the removal of Section 59 and is in favour or parental notification in the case of underage pregnancy. The problem I have with the Pacific Party is its leader Philip Field is before the Court on very serious criminal charges. I know he has not been proven guilty of anything. However, I believe that an MP should be expected to conduct himself in ethical manner regardless of the law. Even if he had stood trial and been found not guilty I would not support him because of the way he has dealt with immigration matters and also the purchase of a house off a constituent who came to him for help. I feel his actions were unethical for an MP.
ACT
ACT is the only party which all its MPs voted against the anti-smacking bill. However, both its current MPs voted for legislation that allows school counsellors to arrange abortions for underage girls without parents being notified. There are other polices that I consider anti-family but their policy on underage abortions is enough to put off voting ACT. I am not totally anti-abortion but I regard this issue more one of parental authority than abortion per se. The only way I would consider voting ACT was if ACT had a policy of all conscience votes having to be ratified at a general referendum before they became law. I asked Rodney if ACT supported such an idea at a Family First Forum he said that he did. After the Forum I tried to find out if ACT would adopt such a policy. I was told that it would seriously be considered. Despite numerous requests and assurances I have not been able to find out if ACT adopted what Rodney thought was a good idea. I suspect the lack of response indicates they have not.
One plus for ACT is that they are almost certainly going to make it to Parliament. However, if ACT was offered a choice of lower taxes or changing the anti-smacking law, which would they choose.
National
Voting National is definitely the best way to get rid of a government which has brought in much anti-family legislation against the will of the vast majority of the public. If National were to change its policy on this anti-parent piece of legislation I would definitely vote National. I cannot understand why John Key ever came up with this so-called compromise. I find it even harder to understand he will not listen to the will of the people with polling so close.
Recommendation
I am not really trying to tell people how to vote. I am trying to generate discussion and debate as to how one can best use their vote to get rid of this piece of anti-family legislation. I hope the discussion could be limited to parental authority and not other moral issues. There are people who signed the petition from all walks of life, religions and will have differing views on a wide range of moral and ethical issues.
My vote will be going to the family party unless National changes its position on this issue. I can understand many petitioners not wanting to vote for the Family Party because of links to Brian Tamaki. If this is the case then I would recommend voting for the Kiwi Party. You may not be as concerned over the issue of the petition details as I am.
Neither of these parties is likely to make it into Parliament. I would have a lot more respect for their leaders if they were honest with there members and the public and acknowledged this but still asked for their vote but explained why it would not be wasted.
Let us suppose National loses by a small number of votes and we end up with the result of the five headed monster Key warns us about. It would likely not last long and the next National leader might learn to listen to the people.
A vote for ACT would certainly help put pressure on National to change the anti-smacking legislation. The law relating to parental notification has been in place for a number of years now and is unlikely to change.
The only way to change the anti-smacking law is to keep the pressure on. One good way to do it is to write to John Key or your National MP if you have one. Send a letter by smail. Emails will have little effect.
I will await responses with interest.
I will be voting on one issue and one issue only and that is which party has a policy of restoring parental authority. Although I will be focusing on the one issue I will consider other things about the party. Firstly, I will consider what the likelihood of the party making it into Parliament is. Secondly, I will consider the honesty of the party leaders.
Parental authority
Obviously, the right of parents to use reasonable physical force to discipline children for purposes of correction is a major consideration. The second issue for me is right of both parents to be informed when authorities know that their underage daughter is pregnant and certainly before an abortion is arranged. A third issue for me is harm minimisation being taught to children in school in relation to drugs or sex. It is sending mixed messages to children to say do not take drugs and delay sex till you are older but if you choose to ignore this advice here is how to do it.
Other issues
Some people who signed the petition may have other issues that they consider far more important than parental authority like the economy, crime or other moral issues like abortion or euthanasia. This article is not for them but for those whose number one issue is parental authority. Large parties hate individuals or pressure groups that focus on one issue. They keep trying to change the subject and you keep saying I did not come to speak to you about that issue but this issue and that is how I will base my vote.
Parties opposed to the removal of Section 59
The parties opposed to the removal of Section 59 are The Family Party, The Kiwi Party, The Pacific Party and ACT. There may be very small parties unlikely to attract a thousand votes that oppose the removal of Section 59 but I will ignore them.
The Family Party
The Family Party is strongly opposed to the removal of Section 59. It also in favour of legislation so parents would be notified before their underage daughters have an abortion arranged for them. The downside is the low likelihood of them making it into Parliament. The chance of them making the 5% is near zero. A spoke to Richard Lewis a while ago and he told me of internal polls in key electorates. I cannot recall the figures he gave me so I will not guess but they were certainly better than the chances of gaining the 5% nationally. Hopefully, a Family Party member will give us an update.
Another downside for me is the Family Party’s links to the Destiny Church and Bishop Brian Tamaki. I personally do not like the idea of someone heading a church and gaining so much personal wealth from many families in his church who would be struggling financially. Having said that, my vote will be going the the Family Party unless National listens to reason.
The Kiwi Party
Like The Family Party, The Kiwi Party is strongly opposed to the removal of Section 59 and is in favour of parental notification in the case of underage pregnancy. According to independent polling the chance of the Kiwi Party making 5% nationally or Larry winning Tauranga is virtually nil.
The downside with the Kiwi Party is simply whether they operate in an ethical manner. Like Andy, I am very concerned about the way they used signatures and addresses from their unsuccessful petition has been used to solicit votes and funds. Andy in his Christian Vote 2008 Blog states why he thinks this is wrong. I agree with his reasons and have few of my own. I will not go into them all here but will say this action has been enough to make me change my vote and I have been a Kiwi Party member from the start.
The Kiwi Party claims they have had good legal advice and what they have done is legal. This may or may not be the case – time will tell. I still think it was quite wrong for them to have done this. Firstly, I started collecting signatures after meeting Craig Hill of Unity for Liberty. That is a group opposed to the anti-smacking legislation but non political. This is but one group that helped in the collection of signatures opposing this anti-family legislation. When Craig started his group the collection of signatures had slowed right down. In my opinion the goal would not have been achieved without Craig. It definitely would not have been achieved without the effort and money from a lot of groups not connected to the Kiwi Party.
The second issue is that I gave an assurance to many people particularly women who did not like to give details like their full address and age that this information would only be used by government employees that would check the details to make sure they are on the voters role. Their names and details have been copied in to PDF files and circulated to members of the Kiwi Party in lots of a few hundred to post with letter soliciting funds and votes (click here for an example).
How secure is this information? If a disgruntled former member of the Kiwi Party put these files on a website would they be breaching the Privacy ACT? Would the person who sent out the PDF files be in breach or both? I wonder if their legal advisors considered the above scenario. I am not suggesting anyone do so?
The point I am making is that the Kiwi Party has made a liar out me and many others in the assurance I have given many people signing the petitions.
The Pacific Party
Like the other two parties, The Pacific Party is strongly opposed to the removal of Section 59 and is in favour or parental notification in the case of underage pregnancy. The problem I have with the Pacific Party is its leader Philip Field is before the Court on very serious criminal charges. I know he has not been proven guilty of anything. However, I believe that an MP should be expected to conduct himself in ethical manner regardless of the law. Even if he had stood trial and been found not guilty I would not support him because of the way he has dealt with immigration matters and also the purchase of a house off a constituent who came to him for help. I feel his actions were unethical for an MP.
ACT
ACT is the only party which all its MPs voted against the anti-smacking bill. However, both its current MPs voted for legislation that allows school counsellors to arrange abortions for underage girls without parents being notified. There are other polices that I consider anti-family but their policy on underage abortions is enough to put off voting ACT. I am not totally anti-abortion but I regard this issue more one of parental authority than abortion per se. The only way I would consider voting ACT was if ACT had a policy of all conscience votes having to be ratified at a general referendum before they became law. I asked Rodney if ACT supported such an idea at a Family First Forum he said that he did. After the Forum I tried to find out if ACT would adopt such a policy. I was told that it would seriously be considered. Despite numerous requests and assurances I have not been able to find out if ACT adopted what Rodney thought was a good idea. I suspect the lack of response indicates they have not.
One plus for ACT is that they are almost certainly going to make it to Parliament. However, if ACT was offered a choice of lower taxes or changing the anti-smacking law, which would they choose.
National
Voting National is definitely the best way to get rid of a government which has brought in much anti-family legislation against the will of the vast majority of the public. If National were to change its policy on this anti-parent piece of legislation I would definitely vote National. I cannot understand why John Key ever came up with this so-called compromise. I find it even harder to understand he will not listen to the will of the people with polling so close.
Recommendation
I am not really trying to tell people how to vote. I am trying to generate discussion and debate as to how one can best use their vote to get rid of this piece of anti-family legislation. I hope the discussion could be limited to parental authority and not other moral issues. There are people who signed the petition from all walks of life, religions and will have differing views on a wide range of moral and ethical issues.
My vote will be going to the family party unless National changes its position on this issue. I can understand many petitioners not wanting to vote for the Family Party because of links to Brian Tamaki. If this is the case then I would recommend voting for the Kiwi Party. You may not be as concerned over the issue of the petition details as I am.
Neither of these parties is likely to make it into Parliament. I would have a lot more respect for their leaders if they were honest with there members and the public and acknowledged this but still asked for their vote but explained why it would not be wasted.
Let us suppose National loses by a small number of votes and we end up with the result of the five headed monster Key warns us about. It would likely not last long and the next National leader might learn to listen to the people.
A vote for ACT would certainly help put pressure on National to change the anti-smacking legislation. The law relating to parental notification has been in place for a number of years now and is unlikely to change.
The only way to change the anti-smacking law is to keep the pressure on. One good way to do it is to write to John Key or your National MP if you have one. Send a letter by smail. Emails will have little effect.
I will await responses with interest.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Bid to ban smacking fails in the Commons - UK
This from the Christian Institute in the UK
"A back-bench attempt to ban smacking has failed to secure a vote in the House of Commons.
A last minute amendment to change the law was tabled just two days before the Children and Young Persons Bill was due to be considered by MPs.
However, there was limited time for debate on the Bill and the amendment was not reached.
Government research has found that 70 per cent of parents oppose an outright ban.
Children’s Secretary Ed Balls recently said that the Government would not support the move. He said it would be difficult to police and “the wrong thing to do for children”.
Mike Judge of The Christian Institute said: “Many loving parents will be relieved that this misguided attempt to interfere with the way they bring up their children has failed.
“Parents who would never dream of being violent towards their children use smacking as one of a range of techniques to discipline them.
“They shouldn’t be criminalised for doing so.”"
Monday, September 29, 2008
"Smacking Not an Offence" - Bradford
Family First Press Release, 29/Sept/08 - read entire article here.
In a stunning turnaround, Green MP Sue Bradford has told parents that smacking is not a criminal offence and implied that groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Every Child Counts and politicians who have said that the aim of the law was to ban parents physically punishing their children are misleading the public.
In a media release from the Green party today, Bradford says ‘smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn’t.’
Yet only last year, she told Newstalk ZB ‘it is already illegal to smack children but her bill removes a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.’
And in the original 2003 media release from the Green party launching her amendment to section 59, it is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
“Sue Bradford is confused by her own law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and is misrepresenting the real effect and purpose of the anti-smacking law. She believes smacking is assault, yet more than 80% of NZ’ers continue to disagree.”
In a stunning turnaround, Green MP Sue Bradford has told parents that smacking is not a criminal offence and implied that groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Every Child Counts and politicians who have said that the aim of the law was to ban parents physically punishing their children are misleading the public.
In a media release from the Green party today, Bradford says ‘smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn’t.’
Yet only last year, she told Newstalk ZB ‘it is already illegal to smack children but her bill removes a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.’
And in the original 2003 media release from the Green party launching her amendment to section 59, it is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
“Sue Bradford is confused by her own law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and is misrepresenting the real effect and purpose of the anti-smacking law. She believes smacking is assault, yet more than 80% of NZ’ers continue to disagree.”
Herald Singing a Different Tune Now
The Herald's Editorial on 28 May 2008 read "Spare us a smacking referendum". In the article they state:
And now on 29 September 2008, they come out saying that...
The article goes on...
Click here to read the rest of the article.
"Why, then, is Mr McCoskrie's group unable to let this unpleasant subject rest? Why is a petition circulating to put the issue to a referendum that could be held with the general election this year? The public must be heartily sick of this non-issue. Smacking children is simply not worth further debate. There are, as every sensible parent knows, better ways to correct bad behaviour, but if parents sometimes use more primitive means the law can be reasonable."
And now on 29 September 2008, they come out saying that...
"The anti-smacking law is still enormously unpopular, a Herald election survey has found. It reveals that more than 500 out of 600 people polled don't agree that smacking children is a criminal offence."
The article goes on...
"Sixteen months after the bill passed in a political compromise supported by Labour and National, the in-depth poll also found strong resistance and scepticism about the watered-down version of the law.
The issue will be tested in a referendum next year, forced by 310,000 people who signed a petition organised by Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock.
The Herald asked people from Cape Reinga to Fiordland the question to be put in the referendum: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Of those polled, 503 (86 per cent) answered "no", 52 said "yes", 28 were equivocal and 17 did not answer the question..."
Click here to read the rest of the article.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Invercargill: 83% Want Anti-Smacking Law Repealed
A survey by Invercargill MP Eric Roy shows a majority of Invercargill residents want to bring back smacking and ban cellphone use in cars.
The survey was sent to 21,500 homes in Invercargill and asked questions on issues from health to a passenger train service.
Almost 12,000 responses had come back and random sampling had been used to come up with statistics, Mr Roy said.
A total of 83 percent of people responding to the survey wanted to repeal the "anti-smacking" legislation removing a legal defence for parents to hit their children.
12,000 responses out of 21,500 surveys is a very high response rate, and so the result of 83% will be extremely close to reality. And surprise surprise, it also backs up what we have been saying for a long time now: "83% of Kiwis don't want the Anti-Smacking Law". Read the rest of the article here at The Southland Times
The survey was sent to 21,500 homes in Invercargill and asked questions on issues from health to a passenger train service.
Almost 12,000 responses had come back and random sampling had been used to come up with statistics, Mr Roy said.
A total of 83 percent of people responding to the survey wanted to repeal the "anti-smacking" legislation removing a legal defence for parents to hit their children.
--------------------------------------------
12,000 responses out of 21,500 surveys is a very high response rate, and so the result of 83% will be extremely close to reality. And surprise surprise, it also backs up what we have been saying for a long time now: "83% of Kiwis don't want the Anti-Smacking Law". Read the rest of the article here at The Southland Times
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Sue Bradford's Democracy
83% of Kiwis think the Anti-Smacking Law is a bad law.
Sue Bradford doesn't care what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)