30 June 2007 - Family First - Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack
MEDIA RELEASE
30 June 2007
Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack
Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.
Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.
“We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.”
“It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances.”
“However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated.“
“The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF’s for possible investigation and intervention.”
“That’s how farcical this law is,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children’s Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe’s actions totally unacceptable.”
But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
Saturday, 30 June 2007
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
tv3 poll
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Polls/tabid/221/Default.aspx
National says it will change the smacking law if it doesn't work. Are you confident that police will administer the law well and that 'good parents' won't be criminalised?
Results as at 5:51 27 June 2007:
Yes 14%
No 76%
Not sure 10%
National says it will change the smacking law if it doesn't work. Are you confident that police will administer the law well and that 'good parents' won't be criminalised?
Results as at 5:51 27 June 2007:
Yes 14%
No 76%
Not sure 10%
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
26 June 2007 - The Timaru Herald - Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
26 June 2007 - The Timaru Herald - Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/4107835a6571.html
Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
By RHONDA MARKBY - The Timaru Herald | Tuesday, 26 June 2007
The new law banning the smacking of children might be three days old, but Timaru police are yet to use it.
Senior Sergeant Mark Offen was not surprised that there had been no complaints, adding allegations of assault on children by either adults or children themselves, were not common.
In the less serious cases officers could use their discretion as to whether a charge was laid. Mr Offen said there still had to be sufficient evidence for police to lay a charge and take the matter to court.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/4107835a6571.html
Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
By RHONDA MARKBY - The Timaru Herald | Tuesday, 26 June 2007
The new law banning the smacking of children might be three days old, but Timaru police are yet to use it.
Senior Sergeant Mark Offen was not surprised that there had been no complaints, adding allegations of assault on children by either adults or children themselves, were not common.
In the less serious cases officers could use their discretion as to whether a charge was laid. Mr Offen said there still had to be sufficient evidence for police to lay a charge and take the matter to court.
Monday, 25 June 2007
25 June 2007 - Family Integrity #269 -- Christian School comment
25 June 2007 - Family Integrity #269 -- Christian School comment
Dear Friends,
Here is an interesting comment from a Christian School principal on the Police guidelines in relation to the new Section 59.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
WYCLIFFE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS
21 Domain Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072
NEW ZEALAND
PHONE 09-570-5873 FAX 09-570-5877 Mr Drake 021-66-9796 EMAIL mld@carey.school.nz
22 June 2007
ADVISORY NOTICE TO SCHOOLS
CORRECTION OF PUPILS AT SCHOOL IS NOW ILLEGAL
Most of you are aware that the Bradford amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act comes into force today. It has been generally recognised that this makes parental use of force in the correction of children illegal. In exactly the same way the use of force by schools and teachers in the correction of children is now illegal.
From today, it appears that forcing a child to undergo correction at school will constitute an assault.
If the Police are consistent in following their guidelines published this week, every complaint about a punishment or correction at school will need to be investigated and, if not prosecuted, reported to a Family Violence Co-ordinator.
There is no provision in the Education Act that specifically empowers schools to correct children. Hitherto the legal basis for teachers in New Zealand schools correcting enrolled children has been that they are acting “in the place of parents”. The Bradford amendment to S59 specifically excludes those acting in the place of parents from using force to punish or correct a child.
A school that forces a child to write lines, pick up paper in the playground or be detained at an interval or after school, for the purpose of punishment or correction, is likely to be committing an assault.
Schools need to note that “force” is a term not restricted to physical force: it can involve placing a child under duress whereby he reasonably believes he will suffer if he does not comply.
The Police Guidelines specifically identify as an offence the detaining of a child in a situation where punishment or correction is intended (as opposed to transient detention to end an actual act of offensive, disruptive, illegal or dangerous behaviour).
State Schools, as opposed to Private Schools, are empowered by the Education Act to stand-down, suspend or exclude pupils. But that power cannot be exercised by way of punishment or correction: it can only be exercised on the basis that the student or other students will be harmed or that other students will be subject to a dangerous example.
Similarly State Schools are empowered by the Education Act to make bylaws, but only so far as they are in compliance with the “general law” of New Zealand. Such bylaws can no longer legitimise the use of force to correct or punish children.
Private Schools’ powers of correction have hitherto rested on the contractual arrangements with parents and the common law recognition that teachers are acting in the place of parents. The power to correct on the basis that teachers are acting in the place of parents is now specifically removed, and no contractual arrangement with parents could restore such a power.
We strongly advise schools to:
1. take legal advice
2. revise their discipline policies and practices
3. brief staff on safe management of children
We also recommend that as part of schools’ citizenship and anti-violence programmes guidance be given children on how to lodge complaints with the Police on behalf of themselves or others who might have been forcibly detained or punished in any school.
While we are not confident Police will be as willing to intervene in state schools as they are to intervene in families, children in schools are entitled to the same even-handed application of the law as children in the home.
In so far as biblical Christian faith and practice has been specifically targeted in the propaganda used to ram this amendment through Parliament in the face of unprecedentedly overwhelming opposition to it, we have every reason to fear that Christian families and schools will be targeted while state institutions will not be subject to the same policing. The fact that the Police Guidelines deal exclusively with corrective force in families and ignore the same offence in schools where it is a daily practice, appears indicative of already entrenched discrimination in Police attitudes and practice.
That a ban on smacking should effectively extend to all forms of punishment and correction should not come as a surprise. It is not just smacking that is opposed. All forms of correction and punishment are opposed in the foolish belief that there is no God, and that as a consequence there is no right and wrong. Along with that is the equally futile belief that if only we can make the “appropriate” laws, “inappropriate” behaviour can be ended and social harmony established.
But enforcing outward compliance does not change the heart, from which, Jesus said, comes wrong (Matthew 15:19). Laws cannot make people good, so laws cannot make societies good. Only God can change the heart. The Bradford amendment gives expression to the hope that man can replace God, and by law change human nature.
Law can, and should, punish wrong and reward right (Romans 13:4). While unable to change the hearts of wrongdoers, good law does establish an orderly and safe society. Ironically, the Bradford amendment that ostensibly opposes punishment will punish parents and teachers who really have the welfare of children at heart.
Michael L Drake
Director
Dear Friends,
Here is an interesting comment from a Christian School principal on the Police guidelines in relation to the new Section 59.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
WYCLIFFE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS
21 Domain Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072
NEW ZEALAND
PHONE 09-570-5873 FAX 09-570-5877 Mr Drake 021-66-9796 EMAIL mld@carey.school.nz
22 June 2007
ADVISORY NOTICE TO SCHOOLS
CORRECTION OF PUPILS AT SCHOOL IS NOW ILLEGAL
Most of you are aware that the Bradford amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act comes into force today. It has been generally recognised that this makes parental use of force in the correction of children illegal. In exactly the same way the use of force by schools and teachers in the correction of children is now illegal.
From today, it appears that forcing a child to undergo correction at school will constitute an assault.
If the Police are consistent in following their guidelines published this week, every complaint about a punishment or correction at school will need to be investigated and, if not prosecuted, reported to a Family Violence Co-ordinator.
There is no provision in the Education Act that specifically empowers schools to correct children. Hitherto the legal basis for teachers in New Zealand schools correcting enrolled children has been that they are acting “in the place of parents”. The Bradford amendment to S59 specifically excludes those acting in the place of parents from using force to punish or correct a child.
A school that forces a child to write lines, pick up paper in the playground or be detained at an interval or after school, for the purpose of punishment or correction, is likely to be committing an assault.
Schools need to note that “force” is a term not restricted to physical force: it can involve placing a child under duress whereby he reasonably believes he will suffer if he does not comply.
The Police Guidelines specifically identify as an offence the detaining of a child in a situation where punishment or correction is intended (as opposed to transient detention to end an actual act of offensive, disruptive, illegal or dangerous behaviour).
State Schools, as opposed to Private Schools, are empowered by the Education Act to stand-down, suspend or exclude pupils. But that power cannot be exercised by way of punishment or correction: it can only be exercised on the basis that the student or other students will be harmed or that other students will be subject to a dangerous example.
Similarly State Schools are empowered by the Education Act to make bylaws, but only so far as they are in compliance with the “general law” of New Zealand. Such bylaws can no longer legitimise the use of force to correct or punish children.
Private Schools’ powers of correction have hitherto rested on the contractual arrangements with parents and the common law recognition that teachers are acting in the place of parents. The power to correct on the basis that teachers are acting in the place of parents is now specifically removed, and no contractual arrangement with parents could restore such a power.
We strongly advise schools to:
1. take legal advice
2. revise their discipline policies and practices
3. brief staff on safe management of children
We also recommend that as part of schools’ citizenship and anti-violence programmes guidance be given children on how to lodge complaints with the Police on behalf of themselves or others who might have been forcibly detained or punished in any school.
While we are not confident Police will be as willing to intervene in state schools as they are to intervene in families, children in schools are entitled to the same even-handed application of the law as children in the home.
In so far as biblical Christian faith and practice has been specifically targeted in the propaganda used to ram this amendment through Parliament in the face of unprecedentedly overwhelming opposition to it, we have every reason to fear that Christian families and schools will be targeted while state institutions will not be subject to the same policing. The fact that the Police Guidelines deal exclusively with corrective force in families and ignore the same offence in schools where it is a daily practice, appears indicative of already entrenched discrimination in Police attitudes and practice.
That a ban on smacking should effectively extend to all forms of punishment and correction should not come as a surprise. It is not just smacking that is opposed. All forms of correction and punishment are opposed in the foolish belief that there is no God, and that as a consequence there is no right and wrong. Along with that is the equally futile belief that if only we can make the “appropriate” laws, “inappropriate” behaviour can be ended and social harmony established.
But enforcing outward compliance does not change the heart, from which, Jesus said, comes wrong (Matthew 15:19). Laws cannot make people good, so laws cannot make societies good. Only God can change the heart. The Bradford amendment gives expression to the hope that man can replace God, and by law change human nature.
Law can, and should, punish wrong and reward right (Romans 13:4). While unable to change the hearts of wrongdoers, good law does establish an orderly and safe society. Ironically, the Bradford amendment that ostensibly opposes punishment will punish parents and teachers who really have the welfare of children at heart.
Michael L Drake
Director
Saturday, 23 June 2007
21 June 2007 - tvnz - Anti-smacking guide for police
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1190535
Anti-smacking guide for police
Jun 21, 2007
With the new anti-smacking law coming into effect on Friday, police have released guidelines on how staff should handle it.
The guide outlines situations where it is okay to smack. But parents opposed to the bill say the guidelines confirm it is their worst nightmare.
The police guidelines acknowledge children are unpredictable. A smack is okay to stop a child running onto a road, experimenting with electrical outlets or behaving in a criminal or offensive way that may harm themselves or others.
Police can also look the other way if the smack is deemed inconsequential or so light it doesn't matter.
But if it comes to police attention, it will be recorded.
"It's a record of police action and potentially if there is a sequence of incidents relating to a particular family or person then police clearly would be failing in their duty not to look at the matter appropriately," says Pope.
In the guide, police state that where force is used against a child, they must consider the amount of force used before deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
If an assault is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, the event will be recorded and the file forwarded to a family violence co-ordinator.
But the guide states that "while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent."
Simon Barnett says he is a good father to his four children and smacking is all part of that.
"Then you say 'look if you do that again daddy's going to give you a smack on the count of three. One, two' and if they do it again I will smack her wee hand," Barnett says.
He believes police guidelines on the new anti-smacking law confirm his worst fears that parents like him will be criminalised.
"Even if it's inconsequential smacking, your name goes on a police computer forever as a violent offender. That is unconscionable," he says.
Police say that is just business as usual.
Police use a number of sources for registering complaints, offences or incidents they attend as part of our overall statistical gathering," says Rob Pope, police deputy commissioner.
Like any new law, this one will have to be tested through the courts to see what the judiciary decides is inconsequential smacking or not. The police statement says that until cases go through the courts it is not clear how the law will be applied.
"Well I'm sorry, I don't want to have to be the test case - some poor child getting dragged through the court system and some family suffering that fate," says Barnett.
Police will review the guidelines in three months.
Law "confusing"
Bob McCoskrie from lobby group Family First says the guidelines show the law is confusing.
"If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing," says McCoskrie.
But bill author Sue Bradford says the guidelines really support the idea behind the bill. She says it is clear that using weapons, or hitting kids around their head is inappropriate and also gives good rules around what is.
CYF won't change approach
And it will be business as usual for Child Youth and Family when the anti-smacking legislation comes into effect on Friday.
CYF says it will look at each notification involving physical discipline in the same way as any other allegation of assault.
Spokeswoman Lee Harris Royal says a smack on the back of the hand to signal displeasure will not reach an intervention stage.
In repeated events where police warnings have been unsuccessful involving the same family, only then will CYFS intervene.
But whether the use of physical force against a child constitutes an offence, will still be a police decision.
Anti-smacking guide for police
Jun 21, 2007
With the new anti-smacking law coming into effect on Friday, police have released guidelines on how staff should handle it.
The guide outlines situations where it is okay to smack. But parents opposed to the bill say the guidelines confirm it is their worst nightmare.
The police guidelines acknowledge children are unpredictable. A smack is okay to stop a child running onto a road, experimenting with electrical outlets or behaving in a criminal or offensive way that may harm themselves or others.
Police can also look the other way if the smack is deemed inconsequential or so light it doesn't matter.
But if it comes to police attention, it will be recorded.
"It's a record of police action and potentially if there is a sequence of incidents relating to a particular family or person then police clearly would be failing in their duty not to look at the matter appropriately," says Pope.
In the guide, police state that where force is used against a child, they must consider the amount of force used before deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
If an assault is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, the event will be recorded and the file forwarded to a family violence co-ordinator.
But the guide states that "while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent."
Simon Barnett says he is a good father to his four children and smacking is all part of that.
"Then you say 'look if you do that again daddy's going to give you a smack on the count of three. One, two' and if they do it again I will smack her wee hand," Barnett says.
He believes police guidelines on the new anti-smacking law confirm his worst fears that parents like him will be criminalised.
"Even if it's inconsequential smacking, your name goes on a police computer forever as a violent offender. That is unconscionable," he says.
Police say that is just business as usual.
Police use a number of sources for registering complaints, offences or incidents they attend as part of our overall statistical gathering," says Rob Pope, police deputy commissioner.
Like any new law, this one will have to be tested through the courts to see what the judiciary decides is inconsequential smacking or not. The police statement says that until cases go through the courts it is not clear how the law will be applied.
"Well I'm sorry, I don't want to have to be the test case - some poor child getting dragged through the court system and some family suffering that fate," says Barnett.
Police will review the guidelines in three months.
Law "confusing"
Bob McCoskrie from lobby group Family First says the guidelines show the law is confusing.
"If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing," says McCoskrie.
But bill author Sue Bradford says the guidelines really support the idea behind the bill. She says it is clear that using weapons, or hitting kids around their head is inappropriate and also gives good rules around what is.
CYF won't change approach
And it will be business as usual for Child Youth and Family when the anti-smacking legislation comes into effect on Friday.
CYF says it will look at each notification involving physical discipline in the same way as any other allegation of assault.
Spokeswoman Lee Harris Royal says a smack on the back of the hand to signal displeasure will not reach an intervention stage.
In repeated events where police warnings have been unsuccessful involving the same family, only then will CYFS intervene.
But whether the use of physical force against a child constitutes an offence, will still be a police decision.
John Dierckx in My Journal - Helen's Fingers in My Kid's Pie: The Price of a Welfare State
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=23903&from=list
Helen's Fingers in My Kid's Pie: The Price of a Welfare State
By John Dierckx in My Journal
Published: Friday, 22 June 07 - 09:29 PM (GMT +12:00)
Last Updated: Saturday, 23 June 07 - 01:22 AM (GMT +12:00)
11 June, The NZ Herald covers a new ban, introduced by our government: this time it is a ban on schools to sell healthy food (or reduce availability substantially) and replace it with healthy alternatives.
See the story here.
Now of course we cannot deny that in New Zealand there is, like in many western countries an obesity problem. And no one will deny that it needs to be addressed. But what are we really seeing here?
What is the main theme here: is it really the genuine concern of the government, of Helen for our children? Helen, the childless mother of all of us here in New Zealand?
Are we seeing a pattern here?
What struck me most is the remark that instead of guidelines this ban has now become a government directive. For this unaware what the difference is: in the latter case compliance to this ban, regardless of its contents will turn into a compliance issue. So what can we expect here? The tuck shop Police? I can just hear Helen repeat that famous words again in the not so far away future:
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
Please not again. And seeing what has happened with the anti-smacking bill what is next? A bill making it an offence for parents to provide children unhealthy food in their lunch boxes?
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
The Price of the Welfare State
Taken away from the spotlight is what motivates the government to think they can and will interfere with for now schools, and you bet ya, within the near future parental interference in what we give our kids to eat: it has nothing to do with genuine care. It has to do with tax money and government spending.
When being asked questions, Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR replies on 26 July 2005, when this issue was discussed:
We are not in the position where we can tell schools what they should or should not sell in their tuck-shops. One thing I would say, though, is that if the National Party and its “Tax Cuts-Education Cuts” policy ever comes to bear, schools will be forced to sell high-return, high-sugar products in their tuck-shops.
Unhealthy food - Obesity - Medical Problems - Health Care - Spending Tax Money
I am not here to deny that getting people to eat healthy is not important, especially our children. But does that allow for a government to intermingle with the already overfull and compulsory extra curricular and curricular agendas of schools?
Look at the anti-smacking bill, now this good directive, and many other legislative and policy initiatives over the past years and what do you really see? You see a government that is making us pay the price for the welfare state we are living in. In part by keeping the taxes up, but more importantly by nibbling away on our individual, parental, organisational and community freedoms.
These freedoms are all making place for an ever expanding government body required to ensure that compliance with the authoritarian and absolutist government agenda is ensured.
Does this remind you of something?
Probably not, cause when facts based education was being replaced by issue based education and a monitored mainstream media:references to anything that might make our children and us as grown ups think or doubt are either taken out completely or dumbed down to useless or even false information. I get the feeling that we are seeing the recreation of a Marxist dream here.
To extreme for your taste? Than at least keep in mind that this welfare state or as some call it Nanni state has a price: the price of losing our rights and freedoms, and let's be honest: we are not just spending tax payers money on "welfare". More and more is required to have all those government workers that are paid from these same tax payers monies to ensure compliance with the ever growing red tape and directions of the government.
Has anyone ever checked how much the size government related organisations have grown over the past periods? I didn't but I bet my bottom dollar that it has been substantially in the past years. And what a great illusion: these expanding government agencies need to be occupied by government workers that will need to be recruited and thus the repression helps to promote the idea of a healthy economy with ever decreasing unemployment rates. In that sense your dear earned tax money is spent on creating a myth. Besides that and what's even worse we are now actually paying money to have our freedoms cut down and to ensure deeper and deeper government interference in our daily lives. So when we talk about a welfare state: who is actually faring well from it? Are we not actually paying for being repressed?
I would like to close of with a free translation of a quote from the well acclaimed Dutch Professor G. Peter Hoefnagels in his book People, fraud and the state, Ambo Baarn 1987 ( People, fraud and the state):
It does not get more symptomatic (blogger adds: of wrong state intervention in our daily and economic life) The emotional need for repressive reactions arises when the power feels the need to affirm itself. The ruler serves two needs by that: it leads the attention away from the real problems by focusing on the incidents and it exemplary demonstrates its power via an individual (blogger adds: offender, non compliant/deviant individual or party).
Have a great weekend and enjoy that fish and chips while you still can.
Have your say on this article at:
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=23903&from=list
Helen's Fingers in My Kid's Pie: The Price of a Welfare State
By John Dierckx in My Journal
Published: Friday, 22 June 07 - 09:29 PM (GMT +12:00)
Last Updated: Saturday, 23 June 07 - 01:22 AM (GMT +12:00)
11 June, The NZ Herald covers a new ban, introduced by our government: this time it is a ban on schools to sell healthy food (or reduce availability substantially) and replace it with healthy alternatives.
See the story here.
Now of course we cannot deny that in New Zealand there is, like in many western countries an obesity problem. And no one will deny that it needs to be addressed. But what are we really seeing here?
What is the main theme here: is it really the genuine concern of the government, of Helen for our children? Helen, the childless mother of all of us here in New Zealand?
Are we seeing a pattern here?
What struck me most is the remark that instead of guidelines this ban has now become a government directive. For this unaware what the difference is: in the latter case compliance to this ban, regardless of its contents will turn into a compliance issue. So what can we expect here? The tuck shop Police? I can just hear Helen repeat that famous words again in the not so far away future:
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
Please not again. And seeing what has happened with the anti-smacking bill what is next? A bill making it an offence for parents to provide children unhealthy food in their lunch boxes?
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
The Price of the Welfare State
Taken away from the spotlight is what motivates the government to think they can and will interfere with for now schools, and you bet ya, within the near future parental interference in what we give our kids to eat: it has nothing to do with genuine care. It has to do with tax money and government spending.
When being asked questions, Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR replies on 26 July 2005, when this issue was discussed:
We are not in the position where we can tell schools what they should or should not sell in their tuck-shops. One thing I would say, though, is that if the National Party and its “Tax Cuts-Education Cuts” policy ever comes to bear, schools will be forced to sell high-return, high-sugar products in their tuck-shops.
Unhealthy food - Obesity - Medical Problems - Health Care - Spending Tax Money
I am not here to deny that getting people to eat healthy is not important, especially our children. But does that allow for a government to intermingle with the already overfull and compulsory extra curricular and curricular agendas of schools?
Look at the anti-smacking bill, now this good directive, and many other legislative and policy initiatives over the past years and what do you really see? You see a government that is making us pay the price for the welfare state we are living in. In part by keeping the taxes up, but more importantly by nibbling away on our individual, parental, organisational and community freedoms.
These freedoms are all making place for an ever expanding government body required to ensure that compliance with the authoritarian and absolutist government agenda is ensured.
Does this remind you of something?
Probably not, cause when facts based education was being replaced by issue based education and a monitored mainstream media:references to anything that might make our children and us as grown ups think or doubt are either taken out completely or dumbed down to useless or even false information. I get the feeling that we are seeing the recreation of a Marxist dream here.
To extreme for your taste? Than at least keep in mind that this welfare state or as some call it Nanni state has a price: the price of losing our rights and freedoms, and let's be honest: we are not just spending tax payers money on "welfare". More and more is required to have all those government workers that are paid from these same tax payers monies to ensure compliance with the ever growing red tape and directions of the government.
Has anyone ever checked how much the size government related organisations have grown over the past periods? I didn't but I bet my bottom dollar that it has been substantially in the past years. And what a great illusion: these expanding government agencies need to be occupied by government workers that will need to be recruited and thus the repression helps to promote the idea of a healthy economy with ever decreasing unemployment rates. In that sense your dear earned tax money is spent on creating a myth. Besides that and what's even worse we are now actually paying money to have our freedoms cut down and to ensure deeper and deeper government interference in our daily lives. So when we talk about a welfare state: who is actually faring well from it? Are we not actually paying for being repressed?
I would like to close of with a free translation of a quote from the well acclaimed Dutch Professor G. Peter Hoefnagels in his book People, fraud and the state, Ambo Baarn 1987 ( People, fraud and the state):
It does not get more symptomatic (blogger adds: of wrong state intervention in our daily and economic life) The emotional need for repressive reactions arises when the power feels the need to affirm itself. The ruler serves two needs by that: it leads the attention away from the real problems by focusing on the incidents and it exemplary demonstrates its power via an individual (blogger adds: offender, non compliant/deviant individual or party).
Have a great weekend and enjoy that fish and chips while you still can.
Have your say on this article at:
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=23903&from=list
22 June 2007 - dailypost - Smacking doesn't make me a bad mum - Rotorua parent
22 June 2007 - dailypost - Smacking doesn't make me a bad mum - Rotorua parent
http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3739024&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=
Smacking doesn't make me a bad mum - Rotorua parent
22.06.2007
By KRISTIN MACFARLANE
SINGLE mum Augusta Scott has her hands full with two young boys, Elijah, 10 and Chance, 8.
Most of the time they're good kids.
But sometimes if they're naughty, she'll give them a light smack.
Ms Scott says that doesn't make her a bad mother.
However, she's worried that from today parents like her could come under unfair scrutiny.
Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill - the anti-smacking bill - comes into effect today after being passed into law last month.
Ms Scott said as a single mum it could be difficult controlling two young boys who sometimes fought.
In these circumstances, a light smack was necessary, she said.
"You can't say naughty boy and send them to time out because it doesn't work," she said.
"If it's controlled it can provide the effective reinforcement when you're trying to teach a child something.
"It's all the parents [who] discipline with control [who] are going to be under the spotlight."
Ms Scott has a teenage daughter who was smacked when she misbehaved.
It had not had a negative affect on her, Ms Scott said.
Ms Scott said the bill also had the potential for children to make false complaints because it has been such a high-profile issue.
"Guaranteed, it will happen."
John Wilson of the Rotorua police child abuse section agreed.
"There's always been the potential for false complaints," Mr Wilson said. However, he did think the bill was good in the sense that it changed the Crimes Act and removed the defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
"It's certainly a step in the right direction," he said.
He didn't think responsible parents needed to worry about getting into trouble.
"The whole thing has to be viewed with a good amount of common sense," he said.
http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3739024&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=
Smacking doesn't make me a bad mum - Rotorua parent
22.06.2007
By KRISTIN MACFARLANE
SINGLE mum Augusta Scott has her hands full with two young boys, Elijah, 10 and Chance, 8.
Most of the time they're good kids.
But sometimes if they're naughty, she'll give them a light smack.
Ms Scott says that doesn't make her a bad mother.
However, she's worried that from today parents like her could come under unfair scrutiny.
Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill - the anti-smacking bill - comes into effect today after being passed into law last month.
Ms Scott said as a single mum it could be difficult controlling two young boys who sometimes fought.
In these circumstances, a light smack was necessary, she said.
"You can't say naughty boy and send them to time out because it doesn't work," she said.
"If it's controlled it can provide the effective reinforcement when you're trying to teach a child something.
"It's all the parents [who] discipline with control [who] are going to be under the spotlight."
Ms Scott has a teenage daughter who was smacked when she misbehaved.
It had not had a negative affect on her, Ms Scott said.
Ms Scott said the bill also had the potential for children to make false complaints because it has been such a high-profile issue.
"Guaranteed, it will happen."
John Wilson of the Rotorua police child abuse section agreed.
"There's always been the potential for false complaints," Mr Wilson said. However, he did think the bill was good in the sense that it changed the Crimes Act and removed the defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
"It's certainly a step in the right direction," he said.
He didn't think responsible parents needed to worry about getting into trouble.
"The whole thing has to be viewed with a good amount of common sense," he said.
20 June 2007- Waikato Times - Father hits out at 'vague' new smacking guidelines
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikatotimes/4102035a6579.html
Father hits out at 'vague' new smacking guidelines
By NATALIE AKOORIE and THE DOMINION POST - Waikato Times | Wednesday, 20 June 2007
A Hamilton father of five who plans to continue smacking his children in spite of a controversial law banning physical punishment says the police prosecution guidelines are too vague.
Neil Pascoe, whose children range in age from two to 23, said it was "totally ridiculous" that parents who regularly smacked their children despite warnings faced prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under the law, which comes into effect on Friday.
"How can they prove it?" he said. "They're not there at the time - they didn't see what went on . . . unless there is bruising - but if there is, or scarring, that then becomes abuse."
Under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday, even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence co-ordinators.
The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of a law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children.
It was passed after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute "inconsequential" smacking.
Though that is recognised in the guidelines, "inconsequential" is not defined, with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.
The advice goes on to say that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is "repetitive and frequent" and previous warnings have been ignored. Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYF.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents.
Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police "some context".
Father hits out at 'vague' new smacking guidelines
By NATALIE AKOORIE and THE DOMINION POST - Waikato Times | Wednesday, 20 June 2007
A Hamilton father of five who plans to continue smacking his children in spite of a controversial law banning physical punishment says the police prosecution guidelines are too vague.
Neil Pascoe, whose children range in age from two to 23, said it was "totally ridiculous" that parents who regularly smacked their children despite warnings faced prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under the law, which comes into effect on Friday.
"How can they prove it?" he said. "They're not there at the time - they didn't see what went on . . . unless there is bruising - but if there is, or scarring, that then becomes abuse."
Under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday, even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence co-ordinators.
The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of a law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children.
It was passed after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute "inconsequential" smacking.
Though that is recognised in the guidelines, "inconsequential" is not defined, with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.
The advice goes on to say that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is "repetitive and frequent" and previous warnings have been ignored. Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYF.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents.
Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police "some context".
Friday, 22 June 2007
22 June 2007 - nicholasokane - from-now-on-good-parents-may-face-prosecution-for-a-light-smack
http://nicholasokane.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/from-now-on-good-parents-may-face-prosecution-for-a-light-smack/
From now on, good parents may face prosecution for a light smack.
Today, the Crimes (substitution of section 59) Ammendment Act takes effect. From now on it will be a crinimal offence to give your child a light smack for the purpose of correction. And incase you believe the spin that no parent who gives a light smack will be prosecuted think again. The Police have released new guidlines indicating how they interprete the law in which parents who even use “minor, trivial” and “inconsequential” force to discipline their children will have their names and details recorded by Police. If the smacking is “repetitive and frequent” the parent may face prosecution. The source of this post is the article “Regular smackers may face prosecution” from yesterdays Dominion Post.
From now on, good parents may face prosecution for a light smack.
Today, the Crimes (substitution of section 59) Ammendment Act takes effect. From now on it will be a crinimal offence to give your child a light smack for the purpose of correction. And incase you believe the spin that no parent who gives a light smack will be prosecuted think again. The Police have released new guidlines indicating how they interprete the law in which parents who even use “minor, trivial” and “inconsequential” force to discipline their children will have their names and details recorded by Police. If the smacking is “repetitive and frequent” the parent may face prosecution. The source of this post is the article “Regular smackers may face prosecution” from yesterdays Dominion Post.
22 June 2007 - Maxim Institute - real issues - A LEAP IN THE DARK
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00273.htm
Maxim Institute - real issues - No. 258
Friday, 22 June 2007, 10:50 am
Column: Maxim Institute
21 June 2007
http://www.maxim.org.nz
A LEAP IN THE DARK
This week the Police released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 detailing how they intend to decide whether parents will or will not be prosecuted when they use physical discipline. The changes to the law around disciplining children will come into effect on 22 June 2007, making it technically illegal to use mild physical force for the purposes of correction. However, if the offence is 'inconsequential' the police have discretion whether to prosecute.
The guidelines suggest that even though infrequent smacking may be considered inconsequential, prosecution may still occur after repetitive incidents. Similarly, even 'inconsequential' reports of force must be passed on to the Police family violence co-ordinator under the guidelines. The police have also been careful to point out that the true impact of this law will not be seen until case law develops. This means that until someone is prosecuted under the new section 59, the way the guidelines will be applied cannot be predicated. The changes to section 59 are, as many opponents warned, a leap in the dark.
The release of these guidelines coincides with the findings of a national poll on people's attitudes towards the new law, conducted by Curia research, a market research firm. The results show that 78 percent of parents surveyed will still smack their children to correct their behaviour if they believe it is reasonable to do so. Only 16 percent said that they would not. This suggests that people are going to be willing to break the law and whether they will be punished for doing so will depend on how the police view their actions.
This raises an interesting question; will the vast majority of New Zealanders actually ignore this new legislation long-term or will the law eventually change New Zealanders' perspective on parental discipline? Sweden is an interesting test case because physical punishment against children was banned in 1979, yet parents continued to physically discipline their children. While 34 percent of those born before 1979 indicated they had received physical punishment from their parents, this only dropped to 32 percent for those born during or after 1979. The results of the poll by Curia research tentatively suggest that a similar pattern may emerge in New Zealand, which is the inevitable result of a law that relies on police guidelines and court precedents.
Maxim Institute - real issues - No. 258
Friday, 22 June 2007, 10:50 am
Column: Maxim Institute
21 June 2007
http://www.maxim.org.nz
A LEAP IN THE DARK
This week the Police released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 detailing how they intend to decide whether parents will or will not be prosecuted when they use physical discipline. The changes to the law around disciplining children will come into effect on 22 June 2007, making it technically illegal to use mild physical force for the purposes of correction. However, if the offence is 'inconsequential' the police have discretion whether to prosecute.
The guidelines suggest that even though infrequent smacking may be considered inconsequential, prosecution may still occur after repetitive incidents. Similarly, even 'inconsequential' reports of force must be passed on to the Police family violence co-ordinator under the guidelines. The police have also been careful to point out that the true impact of this law will not be seen until case law develops. This means that until someone is prosecuted under the new section 59, the way the guidelines will be applied cannot be predicated. The changes to section 59 are, as many opponents warned, a leap in the dark.
The release of these guidelines coincides with the findings of a national poll on people's attitudes towards the new law, conducted by Curia research, a market research firm. The results show that 78 percent of parents surveyed will still smack their children to correct their behaviour if they believe it is reasonable to do so. Only 16 percent said that they would not. This suggests that people are going to be willing to break the law and whether they will be punished for doing so will depend on how the police view their actions.
This raises an interesting question; will the vast majority of New Zealanders actually ignore this new legislation long-term or will the law eventually change New Zealanders' perspective on parental discipline? Sweden is an interesting test case because physical punishment against children was banned in 1979, yet parents continued to physically discipline their children. While 34 percent of those born before 1979 indicated they had received physical punishment from their parents, this only dropped to 32 percent for those born during or after 1979. The results of the poll by Curia research tentatively suggest that a similar pattern may emerge in New Zealand, which is the inevitable result of a law that relies on police guidelines and court precedents.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
21 June 2007 - Family Integrity #268 -- Police Guidelines
21 June 2007
New Zealand’s new “anti-smacking” law, due to come into effect tomorrow, Friday 22 June 2007, will make it a crime for parents to use any force whatsoever with their children, regardless of how reasonable or light, for the purpose of correction.
The following consists of:
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
mailto:craig@hef.org.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
1. Police Practice Guide for new Section 59
<http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html>
3:43pm 19 June 2007
Police today released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act which comes into force this Friday 22 June 2007.
Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope, said the practice guide, in the form of a Commissioner's circular, had been made available to all police staff on the organisation's intranet to advise staff about the new section 59.
Mr Pope said the Commissioner's circular took into account Parliament's affirmation that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution.
"Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law. We have, therefore, set a three month review date on the Commissioner's circular to enable it to be refined if necessary," said Mr Pope.
2. Analysis and Guide
2007/03 - Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009
Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.
New Section 59
Section 59 states:
Analysis of the New Section
Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
* age of the child
* maturity of the child
* ability of the child to reason
* characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
* the circumstances that led to the use of force.
Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.
Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s 59(1)(d)).
Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) - nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.
Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
* running across a busy road
* touching a hot stove
* inserting a metal object into a power point
* striking another child or person with an object.
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.
Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that Are incidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children. For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s 59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.
Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family. Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
* establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
* where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
* depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must
be used by staff.
Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be more appropriate.
Howard Broad
Commissioner
3. Section 6 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007:
6. Chief executive to monitor effects of this Act
4. Smacking guidelines too restrictive - police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007
<http://www.stuff.co.nz/4103124a11.html>
New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.
The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.
A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.
But association president Greg O'Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.
"The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given," he told the New Zealand Herald.
There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.
There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.
Mr O'Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. "And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad."
A group opposing the smacking bill - Family First - yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.
Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.
"This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted," Mr McCoskrie said.
The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.
National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.
5. Download Petition Forms demanding a Referendum on this issue
<http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/SIGN_THE_PETITIONS>
New Zealand’s new “anti-smacking” law, due to come into effect tomorrow, Friday 22 June 2007, will make it a crime for parents to use any force whatsoever with their children, regardless of how reasonable or light, for the purpose of correction.
The following consists of:
1. A brief press release by the NZ Police.
2. A lengthy analysis of the new law change and practice guide for Police Officers written by Police Commissioner Howard Broad.
3. Section 6 of the Act which changed the law promising a review of the legislation after two years.
4. Another press release today showing further concern by Police.
5. Web address for petition forms to demand the NZ Government hold a referendum on the issue at the next elections (November 2008).
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
mailto:craig@hef.org.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
1. Police Practice Guide for new Section 59
<http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html>
3:43pm 19 June 2007
Police today released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act which comes into force this Friday 22 June 2007.
Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope, said the practice guide, in the form of a Commissioner's circular, had been made available to all police staff on the organisation's intranet to advise staff about the new section 59.
Mr Pope said the Commissioner's circular took into account Parliament's affirmation that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution.
"Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law. We have, therefore, set a three month review date on the Commissioner's circular to enable it to be refined if necessary," said Mr Pope.
2. Analysis and Guide
2007/03 - Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009
Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.
New Section 59
Section 59 states:
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the 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 amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Analysis of the New Section
Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
* age of the child
* maturity of the child
* ability of the child to reason
* characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
* the circumstances that led to the use of force.
Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.
Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s 59(1)(d)).
Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) - nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.
Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
* running across a busy road
* touching a hot stove
* inserting a metal object into a power point
* striking another child or person with an object.
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; ...
2. Hurtful, injurious ...
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting ...
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
1. Causing or tending to disruption ...
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.
Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that Are incidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children. For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s 59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.
Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
Of no consequence
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
Unimportant
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member's supervisor must be consulted.
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family. Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
* establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
* where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
* depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must
be used by staff.
Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be more appropriate.
Howard Broad
Commissioner
3. Section 6 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007:
6. Chief executive to monitor effects of this Act
(1) The chief executive must, in accordance with this section, monitor, and advise the Minister on, the effects of this Act, including the extent to which this Act is achieving its purpose as set out in section 3 of this Act, and of any additional impacts.
(2) As soon as practicable after the expiry of the period of 2 years after the date of the commencement of this Act, the chief executive must---
a. review the available data and any trends indicated by that data about the matters referred to in subsection (1); and
b. report the chief executive's findings to the Minister.
(3) As soon as practicable after receiving the report under subsection (2), the Minister must present a copy of that report to the House of Representatives.
(4) In this section, chief executive and Minister have the same meanings as in section 2(1) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.
4. Smacking guidelines too restrictive - police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007
<http://www.stuff.co.nz/4103124a11.html>
New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.
The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.
A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.
But association president Greg O'Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.
"The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given," he told the New Zealand Herald.
There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.
There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.
Mr O'Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. "And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad."
A group opposing the smacking bill - Family First - yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.
Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.
"This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted," Mr McCoskrie said.
The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.
National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.
5. Download Petition Forms demanding a Referendum on this issue
<http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/SIGN_THE_PETITIONS>
21 June 2007 - police - Smacking guidelines too restrictive
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4103124a11.html
Smacking guidelines too restrictive - police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007
New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.
The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.
A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.
But association president Greg O'Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.
"The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given," he told the New Zealand Herald.
There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.
There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.
Mr O'Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. "And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad."
A group opposing the smacking bill - Family First - yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.
Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.
"This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted," Mr McCoskrie said.
The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.
National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.
Smacking guidelines too restrictive - police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007
New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.
The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.
A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.
But association president Greg O'Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.
"The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given," he told the New Zealand Herald.
There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.
There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.
Mr O'Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. "And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad."
A group opposing the smacking bill - Family First - yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.
Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.
"This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted," Mr McCoskrie said.
The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.
National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Investigate magazine's breaking news forum - Confused law, more goverment interference in our daily lives
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/06/confused_law_mo.html
Confused law, more goverment interference in our daily lives
The police hierarchy has just issued guidelines to the front line on how to implement the Bradford bill.
And their guidelines show just how uncertain they are.
The guide advises police to check with prosecution services, child abuse investigators, family violence co-ordinators or legal services when in doubt.
It says the law does not define the age of a child, but some law defines it as under 18 and others as under 14.
The police are also questioning the definition of a parent or acting parent.
And they say there is no definition of reasonable force, although the guidelines note that everyday tasks of caring for children are allowed.
The circular says it is clear a parent is allowed to move a child, but may not detain a child in an unreasonable manner or for a unreasonable period.
Even if smacking was inconsequential, in some cases a prosecution might be warranted if warnings were not heeded.
The guide said that when investigating child assault cases, police had to consider the amount of force used as well as factors such as evidence and common sense.
It recommended that minor incidents be recorded and guidance offered and more serious cases brought to Child, Youth and Family's attention.
With this level of confusion the opportunity for persecution by over zealous officials increases, of course.
Pity the poor parent whose two year old has a tantrum in the mall, they have just invited government busybodies the opening they need to interfere in their lives.
Of course the big government types are thrilled.
After all nanny knows best.
Posted by andrei on June 20, 2007 | Permalink
Confused law, more goverment interference in our daily lives
The police hierarchy has just issued guidelines to the front line on how to implement the Bradford bill.
And their guidelines show just how uncertain they are.
The guide advises police to check with prosecution services, child abuse investigators, family violence co-ordinators or legal services when in doubt.
It says the law does not define the age of a child, but some law defines it as under 18 and others as under 14.
The police are also questioning the definition of a parent or acting parent.
And they say there is no definition of reasonable force, although the guidelines note that everyday tasks of caring for children are allowed.
The circular says it is clear a parent is allowed to move a child, but may not detain a child in an unreasonable manner or for a unreasonable period.
Even if smacking was inconsequential, in some cases a prosecution might be warranted if warnings were not heeded.
The guide said that when investigating child assault cases, police had to consider the amount of force used as well as factors such as evidence and common sense.
It recommended that minor incidents be recorded and guidance offered and more serious cases brought to Child, Youth and Family's attention.
With this level of confusion the opportunity for persecution by over zealous officials increases, of course.
Pity the poor parent whose two year old has a tantrum in the mall, they have just invited government busybodies the opening they need to interfere in their lives.
Of course the big government types are thrilled.
After all nanny knows best.
Posted by andrei on June 20, 2007 | Permalink
20 June 2007 - New Zealand National Party - National will fix smacking law if it's broken
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0706/S00380.htm
National will fix smacking law if it's broken
Wednesday, 20 June 2007, 10:05 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
John Key MP
National Party Leader
20 June 2007
National will fix smacking law if it's broken
National Party Leader John Key says a National-led Government will change the smacking law if the spirit of the compromise thrashed out with Labour is broken.
"We're watching the developments. National has maintained right the way through the process that we do not wish to see responsible parents criminalised. If that starts happening, a National Government would fix the law.
"The critical test of this legislation was always going to be the way it was administered.
"But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required. If, for whatever reason, that proves not to be the case, we'll change it.
"The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for an 'inconsequential' smack. That's what National signed up to, and that's still the case."
ENDS
National will fix smacking law if it's broken
Wednesday, 20 June 2007, 10:05 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
John Key MP
National Party Leader
20 June 2007
National will fix smacking law if it's broken
National Party Leader John Key says a National-led Government will change the smacking law if the spirit of the compromise thrashed out with Labour is broken.
"We're watching the developments. National has maintained right the way through the process that we do not wish to see responsible parents criminalised. If that starts happening, a National Government would fix the law.
"The critical test of this legislation was always going to be the way it was administered.
"But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required. If, for whatever reason, that proves not to be the case, we'll change it.
"The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for an 'inconsequential' smack. That's what National signed up to, and that's still the case."
ENDS
20 June 2007 - Family Integrity #266 -- Apology and Clarification in relation to #265
Dear Friends,
This is in relation to the last Family Integrity Mailout #265 -- Thinking of Going Off to Auzzie?
Please forgive me. I apologise. I have made an error of judgement in the way I introduced this subject. It sounds as if I am recommending that people leave NZ...that was not my intention.
It was unwise and unhelpful of me to send out that email with an introduction that made it sound as if I was promoting the idea of fleeing the country.
Please let me say it plainly: I am not promoting the idea of leaving NZ to go to Australia.
I had been asked by a number of folks about the possibility of moving to Australia and so decided to collect some information. Those who asked about the possibility of moving to Australia specifically asked about the smacking laws and the home education laws. Consequently I specifically addressed these things in that last email #265.
Lord willing, I will write something about how we can respond to this law which makes it a criminal offense to correct one's own children if it involves the use of any level of force at all. Whatever commentary I may write will of necessity also deal with some of the implications of this new legislation...and yet the implications are also rather vague due to the complete lack of definitions of most of the key terms in the law and the lack of any case law as yet.
Please forgive me and please accept my apologies for stirring up unnecessary fear or warnings to flee the country. We each need to soberly assess the situation and work out what to do.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http;//www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
This is in relation to the last Family Integrity Mailout #265 -- Thinking of Going Off to Auzzie?
Please forgive me. I apologise. I have made an error of judgement in the way I introduced this subject. It sounds as if I am recommending that people leave NZ...that was not my intention.
It was unwise and unhelpful of me to send out that email with an introduction that made it sound as if I was promoting the idea of fleeing the country.
Please let me say it plainly: I am not promoting the idea of leaving NZ to go to Australia.
I had been asked by a number of folks about the possibility of moving to Australia and so decided to collect some information. Those who asked about the possibility of moving to Australia specifically asked about the smacking laws and the home education laws. Consequently I specifically addressed these things in that last email #265.
Lord willing, I will write something about how we can respond to this law which makes it a criminal offense to correct one's own children if it involves the use of any level of force at all. Whatever commentary I may write will of necessity also deal with some of the implications of this new legislation...and yet the implications are also rather vague due to the complete lack of definitions of most of the key terms in the law and the lack of any case law as yet.
Please forgive me and please accept my apologies for stirring up unnecessary fear or warnings to flee the country. We each need to soberly assess the situation and work out what to do.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http;//www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
20 June 2007 - Family First - Regular smackers may face charges
Regular smackers may face charges
The Dominion Post 20 June 2007
Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment. Even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday. The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of the law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children. The law comes into force on Friday.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents. "Who's going to be the lucky test case parents who have to go through the hell of a prosecution? If the police are saying 'we're not sure', how in the heck are parents going to be certain that they're parenting within the law?"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4100946a10.html
Police issue smacking law guide and question definitions
NZ Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10446785
READ The Police Practive Guide for New Section 59
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html
Family First's Response...
Police Practice Guide for Smacking Law Confirms Worst Fears for Parents
Family First MEDIA RELEASE
19 JUNE 2007
The Police have confirmed that they will prosecute parents who lightly smack their children, even if the smacking is inconsequential.
In the Police Practice Guide released by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope today, it states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”
“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This flies in the face of assurances given by Helen Clark and John Key.”
The Police Practice guide also acknowledges the confusing nature of the new law in its introduction by stating that "until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law.”
“If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“The Practice Guide also confirms that the Police will be keeping records of all complaints – even those of a minor, trivial or inconsequential nature.”
“It is interesting to note that the Police, in the absence of clear definitions in the law of who is a “child” and what constitutes “reasonable force” will be forced to make subjective decisions based on the age and maturity of the child and the circumstances that led to the use of force. In other words, and ironically, we’re back to the original section 59.”
“The politicians have delivered a ‘feel-good’ law change to the Police with no substance or certainty for parents, and some poor family is going to be the ‘test case’ of a law which, according to a recent poll, 78% of NZ’ers will ignore and 77% say it will have no effect on child abuse.”
The Dominion Post 20 June 2007
Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment. Even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday. The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of the law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children. The law comes into force on Friday.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents. "Who's going to be the lucky test case parents who have to go through the hell of a prosecution? If the police are saying 'we're not sure', how in the heck are parents going to be certain that they're parenting within the law?"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4100946a10.html
Police issue smacking law guide and question definitions
NZ Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10446785
READ The Police Practive Guide for New Section 59
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html
Family First's Response...
Police Practice Guide for Smacking Law Confirms Worst Fears for Parents
Family First MEDIA RELEASE
19 JUNE 2007
The Police have confirmed that they will prosecute parents who lightly smack their children, even if the smacking is inconsequential.
In the Police Practice Guide released by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope today, it states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”
“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This flies in the face of assurances given by Helen Clark and John Key.”
The Police Practice guide also acknowledges the confusing nature of the new law in its introduction by stating that "until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law.”
“If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“The Practice Guide also confirms that the Police will be keeping records of all complaints – even those of a minor, trivial or inconsequential nature.”
“It is interesting to note that the Police, in the absence of clear definitions in the law of who is a “child” and what constitutes “reasonable force” will be forced to make subjective decisions based on the age and maturity of the child and the circumstances that led to the use of force. In other words, and ironically, we’re back to the original section 59.”
“The politicians have delivered a ‘feel-good’ law change to the Police with no substance or certainty for parents, and some poor family is going to be the ‘test case’ of a law which, according to a recent poll, 78% of NZ’ers will ignore and 77% say it will have no effect on child abuse.”
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
19 June 2007 - Family Integrity #265 -- Thinking of Going off to Auzzie?
19 June 2007 - Family Integrity #265 -- Thinking of Going off to Auzzie?
Greetings!
OK, I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but here it is anyway:
Below is a lot of information to help folks get started on their investigations of the opportunity to shift to Australia to escape the galloping interventionist socialism we are curesed with here in NZ.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Brief Comments from others:
I can't tell you much about Melbourne, but we are looking at going to Queanbeyan which is on the NSW side of the ACT state line.
The NSW law was changed a couple of years ago but rather than throwing out their version of section 59, they defined what was UNreasonable.
This included 2 items - one that a child could not be physically chastised above the shoulders, and the other is that a smack cannot leave more than a transitory sting - no lasting injuries. Some people wanted to outlaw the use of implements, but this was thrown out.
Both NSW and ACT have homeschooling written right throughout their education acts also, making it an ingrained part of their laws, rather than just the one law we have, that could easily be struck out just like section 59.
As far as rents go, go to http://www.realestate.com.au they have rentals and sale properties. It is also worth checking out the likes of <http://mycareer.com.au> for jobs.
Hope this is of some help.
Blessings
C….(in NZ)
We have just moved to Ballarat which is 1.25 hrs west of Melbourne. Ballarat has about 80,000 people. VIC has NO H/E rules so you just do what you want and don't have to tell anybody.
There are a number of towns and cities in VIC. Bendigo is a nice city about 100,000 I think and property isn't much dearer than Ballarat. Shepparton (2 hrs north of Melb) is nice too about 25,000 and similar market to Bendigo.
Melbourne is extremely expensive to buy a house, like $400,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house. Ballarat is about $160,000-$200,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house and rent is about $200 for the equivalent.
Cost of general living like food and fuel is about the same as NZ. Fuel is actually cheaper. Vans are ludicrously expensive and few and far between. Make sure you have $15,000-$25,000 for a reasonable van, not the $5,000-$10,000 like in NZ.
Sell all your belongings on Trademe and go garage saleing here. We did and got some good stuff and cost less than what we got for our stuff in NZ.
Hope this helps
Blessings
M…(in Oz)
About 80% of homeschoolers in Queensland aren't registered. Large families are also not as common, even amongst homeschoolers.
I hope this helps
B….(in Oz)
I have just been doing some research on homeschooling in Victoria, and it appears that the laws are set to become quite controlling in the middle of this year. After M……'s email regarding the ease of homeschooling laws there, I thought it would be pertinent that you know of the changes. These can be viewed at
http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/victorianlegalinformation.pdf
Here are the things that worried me most:
8 Requirements of instruction in home schooling:
It is a requirement of registration of a child for home schooling that the child must receive regular and efficient instruction that-
(a) taken as a whole, substantially addresses the following learning areas-
(i) The Arts;
(ii) English;
(iii) Health and Physical Education (including Sport);
(iv) Languages other than English;
(v) Mathematics;
(vi) Science;
(vii) Studies of Society and Environment;
(viii) Technology; and
Note: These are the learning areas set out in Schedule 1 to the Act.
(b) is consistent with the principles underlying the Act, being the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to-
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance.
Some of these strike me as plain dumb, and others appear to be saying we must teach homo-friendly views to our kids.
C……(in NZ)
Websites About Immigration To Australia
<http://www.immi.gov.au/>
<http://www.workpermit.com/australia/australia.htm>
<http://www.immigrationmag.com/?user=4693>
<http://www.migrationexpert.com/australia/>
<http://liveinaustralia.com>
Table Regarding Smacking Laws in Australia
I have spent hours trying to find out the smacking laws in the different Australian states, and have just found this link that gives a brief summary, followed by a table at the bottom of the page:
<http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/australia.html#key>
Blessings
C….(in NZ)
Email Discussion Groups about Immigrating to Australia
http://kiwiaussie.freeforums.org (I think this one was set up specifically for those thinking of leaving since the Bill to ban parental authority was passed.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AustralianImmigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiozim/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationtoaustralia/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/australian_immigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-immigration-advice/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Australia-First/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AustraliaMigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TaniMigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asaconsultants/
Brief Review of Home Education Laws in Australia
“Many of us cannot see NZ as a viable place to rear a Christian family any more. Anyway, there are now a growing number of people asking about which part of Australia we can flee to.”
Hmm, I am not sure that is a wise way to be thinking. The changes to s59 alone would seem to me to be insufficient cause to "up stakes" and migrate to sunny Oz - "the land of the long weekend" and where Global Warming hysteria is such that we made Tim Flannery our Australian of the Year. Such major upheaval could be a case of 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'.
We have our own difficulties here, too. Australia was a sponsor of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child back in the 1980s, and I was involved in some rearguard defence at the time - to no avail. It's sad to have all your arguments vindicated by 20 years of creeping socialism.
Although for now our assault laws in the Crimes Acts of each jurisdiction still include a defence of reasonable force, there are irregular rumblings from the anti-smacking brigade here too. So it might only be a year or five years before the battle is joined here.
As you would be aware, this is all part of the attack on the family - God's institution for revival.
See <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/12/motherhood-madness-why-mums-are-not-really-mums/> and especially the link to the original article in The Australian found at the end of Bill's article.
“People want to know about the home education laws in the various states.”
The shortest answer is that as of today:
a) all States except Victoria (where we are) regulate home education by requiring parents to obtain permission to educate their own children.
b) all States except Victoria require parents to complete forms, submit curriculum plans and be inspected regularly.
c) Within this framework, the diligence of inspection etc varies, so that in order of preference, it is "easiest" in a pragmatic sense to home educate in:
Victoria
New South Wales
South Australia
Tasmania
Western Australia ?
Aust Capital Territory
Northern Territory
Western Australia ?
Queensland
[In the spiritual sense, it's almost all the same except for Victoria which is about to change. Our spiritual freedom has been compromised by an interfering governmental humanism.]
As from some date soon - probably July 1st, Victorians will have a new Education Act proclaimed and we will have to register to home educate our children.
The above rankings will remain as we will not be required to have regular inspections.
However, we must keep sufficient records to show that we are observing the 8 Key Learning Areas, and the motherhood statements in the Act (democracy, tolerance, rule of law - all the usual UNO guff).
Inspections will occur only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that we are not fulfilling the requirements/conditions of registration.
We fought hard last year against all this, but to no avail - and now this same Labour socialist government was voted back in (as opposed to the Liberal socialist Opposition who couldn't 'lay a glove on them') and we are literally running out of water for the population!
It is timely that in our church we are studying the prophecy of Joel - it certainly speaks to Australia's current situation.
Hope this gives you some data.
Christian Regards,
John & Marjo Angelico
Kingsley Educational Pty Ltd
P O Box 310
Mount Waverley
VIC 3149 AUSTRALIA
ABN 77 007 423 734
Phone +613 9544 8792
Fax +613 9544 2328
talldad@kepl.com.au
http://www.kepl.com.au
Websites of Australian Home Education Groups
http://www.kepl.com.au/howtostart.html
http://www.australianhistorypictures.com/
http://homeschoolaustralia.beverleypaine.com/
http://www.design-your-homeschool.com/HomeschoolinginAustralia.html
http://www.theac.org.au/
http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/
http://www.hbln.org.au/
http://homeschooling.com.au/
http://sahome-ed.beverleypaine.com/
Email discussion groups:
chooz-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chooz/
Discussions of Classical Education, resources and options for home-based educators in Australia. We believe in the right to "chooz"! Feel free to join in our discussions for the benefit of all the members, as we discuss the myriad of options in Classical Homeschooling in Australia.
HomeschoolAustraliaNewsletter-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Regular newsletter by long-term home educator Beverley Paine, incorporating Beverley's old group, Daily Homeschooling Tips, and featuring links to articles published on Homeschool Australia and other home education websites.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HomeschoolAustraliaFAQ/
HomeschoolAustraliaFAQ is the sister group to Homeschool Australia Newsletter. You can post your homeschooling questions on this site and Beverley Paine, homeschooling author and publisher with 19 years of home educating experience, as well as other list members, will do their best to answer them. Some of the answers will also be featured on the Homeschool Australia website and in the newsletter. Please subsribe to the newsletter group to receive articles on home education and news, tips, advice, etc every couple of months.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sunshinecoasthomeschoolers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianHomeschoolinginAustralia/
Greetings!
OK, I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but here it is anyway:
Below is a lot of information to help folks get started on their investigations of the opportunity to shift to Australia to escape the galloping interventionist socialism we are curesed with here in NZ.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Brief Comments from others:
I can't tell you much about Melbourne, but we are looking at going to Queanbeyan which is on the NSW side of the ACT state line.
The NSW law was changed a couple of years ago but rather than throwing out their version of section 59, they defined what was UNreasonable.
This included 2 items - one that a child could not be physically chastised above the shoulders, and the other is that a smack cannot leave more than a transitory sting - no lasting injuries. Some people wanted to outlaw the use of implements, but this was thrown out.
Both NSW and ACT have homeschooling written right throughout their education acts also, making it an ingrained part of their laws, rather than just the one law we have, that could easily be struck out just like section 59.
As far as rents go, go to http://www.realestate.com.au
Hope this is of some help.
Blessings
C….(in NZ)
We have just moved to Ballarat which is 1.25 hrs west of Melbourne. Ballarat has about 80,000 people. VIC has NO H/E rules so you just do what you want and don't have to tell anybody.
There are a number of towns and cities in VIC. Bendigo is a nice city about 100,000 I think and property isn't much dearer than Ballarat. Shepparton (2 hrs north of Melb) is nice too about 25,000 and similar market to Bendigo.
Melbourne is extremely expensive to buy a house, like $400,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house. Ballarat is about $160,000-$200,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house and rent is about $200 for the equivalent.
Cost of general living like food and fuel is about the same as NZ. Fuel is actually cheaper. Vans are ludicrously expensive and few and far between. Make sure you have $15,000-$25,000 for a reasonable van, not the $5,000-$10,000 like in NZ.
Sell all your belongings on Trademe and go garage saleing here. We did and got some good stuff and cost less than what we got for our stuff in NZ.
Hope this helps
Blessings
M…(in Oz)
About 80% of homeschoolers in Queensland aren't registered. Large families are also not as common, even amongst homeschoolers.
I hope this helps
B….(in Oz)
I have just been doing some research on homeschooling in Victoria, and it appears that the laws are set to become quite controlling in the middle of this year. After M……'s email regarding the ease of homeschooling laws there, I thought it would be pertinent that you know of the changes. These can be viewed at
http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/victorianlegalinformation.pdf
Here are the things that worried me most:
8 Requirements of instruction in home schooling:
It is a requirement of registration of a child for home schooling that the child must receive regular and efficient instruction that-
(a) taken as a whole, substantially addresses the following learning areas-
(i) The Arts;
(ii) English;
(iii) Health and Physical Education (including Sport);
(iv) Languages other than English;
(v) Mathematics;
(vi) Science;
(vii) Studies of Society and Environment;
(viii) Technology; and
Note: These are the learning areas set out in Schedule 1 to the Act.
(b) is consistent with the principles underlying the Act, being the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to-
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance.
Some of these strike me as plain dumb, and others appear to be saying we must teach homo-friendly views to our kids.
C……(in NZ)
Websites About Immigration To Australia
<http://www.immi.gov.au/>
<http://www.workpermit.com/australia/australia.htm>
<http://www.immigrationmag.com/?user=4693>
<http://www.migrationexpert.com/australia/>
<http://liveinaustralia.com>
Table Regarding Smacking Laws in Australia
I have spent hours trying to find out the smacking laws in the different Australian states, and have just found this link that gives a brief summary, followed by a table at the bottom of the page:
<http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/australia.html#key>
Blessings
C….(in NZ)
Email Discussion Groups about Immigrating to Australia
http://kiwiaussie.freeforums.org (I think this one was set up specifically for those thinking of leaving since the Bill to ban parental authority was passed.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AustralianImmigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiozim/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationtoaustralia/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/australian_immigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-immigration-advice/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Australia-First/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AustraliaMigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TaniMigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asaconsultants/
Brief Review of Home Education Laws in Australia
“Many of us cannot see NZ as a viable place to rear a Christian family any more. Anyway, there are now a growing number of people asking about which part of Australia we can flee to.”
Hmm, I am not sure that is a wise way to be thinking. The changes to s59 alone would seem to me to be insufficient cause to "up stakes" and migrate to sunny Oz - "the land of the long weekend" and where Global Warming hysteria is such that we made Tim Flannery our Australian of the Year. Such major upheaval could be a case of 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'.
We have our own difficulties here, too. Australia was a sponsor of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child back in the 1980s, and I was involved in some rearguard defence at the time - to no avail. It's sad to have all your arguments vindicated by 20 years of creeping socialism.
Although for now our assault laws in the Crimes Acts of each jurisdiction still include a defence of reasonable force, there are irregular rumblings from the anti-smacking brigade here too. So it might only be a year or five years before the battle is joined here.
As you would be aware, this is all part of the attack on the family - God's institution for revival.
See <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/12/motherhood-madness-why-mums-are-not-really-mums/> and especially the link to the original article in The Australian found at the end of Bill's article.
“People want to know about the home education laws in the various states.”
The shortest answer is that as of today:
a) all States except Victoria (where we are) regulate home education by requiring parents to obtain permission to educate their own children.
b) all States except Victoria require parents to complete forms, submit curriculum plans and be inspected regularly.
c) Within this framework, the diligence of inspection etc varies, so that in order of preference, it is "easiest" in a pragmatic sense to home educate in:
Victoria
New South Wales
South Australia
Tasmania
Western Australia ?
Aust Capital Territory
Northern Territory
Western Australia ?
Queensland
[In the spiritual sense, it's almost all the same except for Victoria which is about to change. Our spiritual freedom has been compromised by an interfering governmental humanism.]
As from some date soon - probably July 1st, Victorians will have a new Education Act proclaimed and we will have to register to home educate our children.
The above rankings will remain as we will not be required to have regular inspections.
However, we must keep sufficient records to show that we are observing the 8 Key Learning Areas, and the motherhood statements in the Act (democracy, tolerance, rule of law - all the usual UNO guff).
Inspections will occur only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that we are not fulfilling the requirements/conditions of registration.
We fought hard last year against all this, but to no avail - and now this same Labour socialist government was voted back in (as opposed to the Liberal socialist Opposition who couldn't 'lay a glove on them') and we are literally running out of water for the population!
Hope this gives you some data.
Christian Regards,
John & Marjo Angelico
Kingsley Educational Pty Ltd
P O Box 310
Mount Waverley
VIC 3149 AUSTRALIA
ABN 77 007 423 734
Phone +613 9544 8792
Fax +613 9544 2328
talldad@kepl.com.au
http://www.kepl.com.au
Websites of Australian Home Education Groups
http://www.kepl.com.au/howtostart.html
http://www.australianhistorypictures.com/
http://homeschoolaustralia.beverleypaine.com/
http://www.design-your-homeschool.com/HomeschoolinginAustralia.html
http://www.theac.org.au/
http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/
http://www.hbln.org.au/
http://homeschooling.com.au/
http://sahome-ed.beverleypaine.com/
Email discussion groups:
chooz-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chooz/
Discussions of Classical Education, resources and options for home-based educators in Australia. We believe in the right to "chooz"! Feel free to join in our discussions for the benefit of all the members, as we discuss the myriad of options in Classical Homeschooling in Australia.
HomeschoolAustraliaNewsletter-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Regular newsletter by long-term home educator Beverley Paine, incorporating Beverley's old group, Daily Homeschooling Tips, and featuring links to articles published on Homeschool Australia and other home education websites.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HomeschoolAustraliaFAQ/
HomeschoolAustraliaFAQ is the sister group to Homeschool Australia Newsletter. You can post your homeschooling questions on this site and Beverley Paine, homeschooling author and publisher with 19 years of home educating experience, as well as other list members, will do their best to answer them. Some of the answers will also be featured on the Homeschool Australia website and in the newsletter. Please subsribe to the newsletter group to receive articles on home education and news, tips, advice, etc every couple of months.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sunshinecoasthomeschoolers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianHomeschoolinginAustralia/
Sunday, 17 June 2007
17 June 2007 - Family First - 78% Will Break New Smacking Law Coming Into Force This Week
17 June 2007 - Family First - 78% Will Break New Smacking Law Coming Into Force This Week
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00214.htm
MEDIA RELEASE
17 JUNE 2007
Smacking Law Rejected by Majority of NZ’ers – 78% Will Ignore the Law
Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.
These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.
29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.
“This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
82% 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.
When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know.
78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.
“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”
When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely.
“This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”
“The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.”
As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.
“Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.
The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.
Read Full Report - http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Smacking%20Poll%20June%202007%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00214.htm
MEDIA RELEASE
17 JUNE 2007
Smacking Law Rejected by Majority of NZ’ers – 78% Will Ignore the Law
Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.
These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.
29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.
“This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
82% 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.
When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know.
78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.
“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”
When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely.
“This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”
“The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.”
As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.
“Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.
The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.
Read Full Report - http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Smacking%20Poll%20June%202007%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
Saturday, 16 June 2007
16 June 2007 - Family Integrity #264 -- War Against Children
Greetings!
Please listen to this 3 minute analysis of "The War Against Children" by the late Dr R. J. Rushdoony of Chalcedon Institute, Vallecito, California.
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/603567
In Christ's service,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Please listen to this 3 minute analysis of "The War Against Children" by the late Dr R. J. Rushdoony of Chalcedon Institute, Vallecito, California.
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/603567
In Christ's service,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Is there a war against children?
Is there a war against children?
Are there "rights" for children? Rushdoony discusses the insanity of the liberal idea of freedom for children.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_32.php
The Chalcedon Foundation • http://www.chalcedon.edu
Phone: (209) 736-4365 • Fax: (209) 736-0536
P.O. Box 158 • Vallecito, CA 95251
Are there "rights" for children? Rushdoony discusses the insanity of the liberal idea of freedom for children.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_32.php
The Chalcedon Foundation • http://www.chalcedon.edu
Phone: (209) 736-4365 • Fax: (209) 736-0536
P.O. Box 158 • Vallecito, CA 95251
Thursday, 14 June 2007
14 June 2007 - Family Integrity #263 -- School Newsletter
Dear Friends,
The writer of the attached (below) school newsletter gave me permission to send it further afield -- to you all. I reckon his analysis and recommendations of the situation (before the Bill to Criminalise Parental Authority was passed) is very insigtful and helpful.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Tyndale Park Christian School
206 Murphys Road, Flat Bush, Manukau 2016. Phone 274 9771, Fax 274 9772
27 April 2007
Dear Parents, Staff, Pupils and Friends,
If we are not of this world, we will be hated by this world. If we believe what the Lord Jesus Christ says in John 15:19 “I have chosen you out of the world” then we should not only be aware but even experience that the world hates us!
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19.
“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” 1 John 3:13.
Why are Christians - jailed in Eritrea, murdered in India, missing in Sri Lanka, facing trial in Uzbekistan, buried alive in Sudan, have their houses burned down in Pakistan, executed in Indonesia, beheaded in Sulawesi, tortured in Vietnam, martyred in Iran, stoned to death in Nigeria, imprisoned in Belarus, or starved to death in North Korea? Because:
We indeed have reason to be very thankful that we do not live under persecution in New Zealand such as that mentioned in the countries listed above. However, are you aware that since the 1980’s there has been a systematic effort, through social manipulation, in our own country, to destroy God’s first institution, the family and the home?
A dictionary from the 1980’s gives the following definition of a family: “people connected to one another by marriage and close blood relation and actually living together in one household, composed of a father, a mother (called parents) and a child or children.” You will not find such a definition in today’s dictionaries.
In Genesis 1:27&28 and in Matthew 19:4-6 we find God’s plan for marriage and the family is clearly stated. The destruction of the Biblical family started officially in 1994, the “International Year of the Family”. The NZ Government of the day released the following definition of the family: “a group of people which may include the very young and the elderly, who live in close association, which produces interdependence and a moral obligation to support one another.” The definition is not only anti-family, but unbiblical.
I believe it is a description of how people were living in the days before the flood (see Genesis 6:5-7) and in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:20&21 and 19:24&25) and in many “cultures” today.
Under the present government “much progress has been made” to further the destruction of the Biblical home/family. Allow me to quote from “The Politics of Family” by the Maxim Instute:
All of the above actions were taken by the present government!
These same Social Engineers presently want to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act which means that the use of any form of force on a child will constitute an assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.
Why do the majority of the Members of Parliament seem to support or go along with the repeal of the Bill by List MP Sue Bradford? Why are our “elected representatives” so concerned about Corporal Correction in a functional home consisting of a father, a mother and children without these children needing hospital treatment or burial? Why are Parliament, Government and its agencies (especially the Ministry of Social Development) either unwilling or unable, or both, to stem the serious abuse, murder and the shocking neglect of children in dysfunctional homes?
For answers to that we need to turn to the Scriptures! The attitude of the authorities in NZ presently is vividly described in Isaiah 47:10 and in other places.
What to do? Again the Scriptures give us answers.
If we are given the legal opportunity to make submissions to Parliament and have the legal right to write to or ring members of Parliament, let us blow the trumpet.
In conclusion, seeing that the Lord Jesus Christ “has chosen us out of the world” (John 15:19), let us therefore “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) but “live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:12.
J H Brinkman
School Manager
The writer of the attached (below) school newsletter gave me permission to send it further afield -- to you all. I reckon his analysis and recommendations of the situation (before the Bill to Criminalise Parental Authority was passed) is very insigtful and helpful.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Tyndale Park Christian School
206 Murphys Road, Flat Bush, Manukau 2016. Phone 274 9771, Fax 274 9772
27 April 2007
Dear Parents, Staff, Pupils and Friends,
If we are not of this world, we will be hated by this world. If we believe what the Lord Jesus Christ says in John 15:19 “I have chosen you out of the world” then we should not only be aware but even experience that the world hates us!
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19.
“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” 1 John 3:13.
Why are Christians - jailed in Eritrea, murdered in India, missing in Sri Lanka, facing trial in Uzbekistan, buried alive in Sudan, have their houses burned down in Pakistan, executed in Indonesia, beheaded in Sulawesi, tortured in Vietnam, martyred in Iran, stoned to death in Nigeria, imprisoned in Belarus, or starved to death in North Korea? Because:
1. They no longer have freedom and are persecuted for their faith in these countries and in many other countries.
2. They love their Saviour and are “not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ” (see Romans 1:16).
3. They are persuaded that they “ought to obey God rather than men” (see Acts 5:29).
4. They realise that the world hated their Lord before it hated them (see John 15:18).
5. They are not willing to compromise in their testimony.
We indeed have reason to be very thankful that we do not live under persecution in New Zealand such as that mentioned in the countries listed above. However, are you aware that since the 1980’s there has been a systematic effort, through social manipulation, in our own country, to destroy God’s first institution, the family and the home?
A dictionary from the 1980’s gives the following definition of a family: “people connected to one another by marriage and close blood relation and actually living together in one household, composed of a father, a mother (called parents) and a child or children.” You will not find such a definition in today’s dictionaries.
In Genesis 1:27&28 and in Matthew 19:4-6 we find God’s plan for marriage and the family is clearly stated. The destruction of the Biblical family started officially in 1994, the “International Year of the Family”. The NZ Government of the day released the following definition of the family: “a group of people which may include the very young and the elderly, who live in close association, which produces interdependence and a moral obligation to support one another.” The definition is not only anti-family, but unbiblical.
I believe it is a description of how people were living in the days before the flood (see Genesis 6:5-7) and in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:20&21 and 19:24&25) and in many “cultures” today.
Under the present government “much progress has been made” to further the destruction of the Biblical home/family. Allow me to quote from “The Politics of Family” by the Maxim Instute:
1. The Hon Steve Maharey stated that “the government’s decision to focus on families and parenting is not driven by concern in the decline in families with two married parents and children. Better support for parenting must and will apply equally to all family types.”
2. The Hon Phil Goff: stated at the United Nations in 2004 “that the NZ Government is pro-family having even set up the Commission for the Family.” Note that NZ has a Families Commission. I trust you recognise the difference.
3. The NZ government refused to sign the United Nations Doha Declaration, which specifically addresses the importance of government support for the family. The NZ Ambassador to the United Nations said the following about the Declaration “that it was being used to attack long-standing consensus agreement on diversity of the family structure in NZ.”
4. The present government committee charged with implementing the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) frequently labels motherhood as “an unfortunate stereotype”. This committee is aggressively pro-childcare etc.
5. In November 2003 the NZ Government led a group of 17 nations opposing a pro-parent draft resolution in the United Nations titled: “Importance of the role of parents in the care, development and well-being of their children.”
6. NZ now leads 31, mostly European, countries in the push for sexual orientation as a human right.
7. NZ has recently increased funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFA) which objects to strengthening the unique role of parents.
All of the above actions were taken by the present government!
These same Social Engineers presently want to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act which means that the use of any form of force on a child will constitute an assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.
Why do the majority of the Members of Parliament seem to support or go along with the repeal of the Bill by List MP Sue Bradford? Why are our “elected representatives” so concerned about Corporal Correction in a functional home consisting of a father, a mother and children without these children needing hospital treatment or burial? Why are Parliament, Government and its agencies (especially the Ministry of Social Development) either unwilling or unable, or both, to stem the serious abuse, murder and the shocking neglect of children in dysfunctional homes?
For answers to that we need to turn to the Scriptures! The attitude of the authorities in NZ presently is vividly described in Isaiah 47:10 and in other places.
1. “For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, “None seeth me.” Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; And thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.” Isaiah 47:10.
2. The humanist’s “heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9.
3. “The fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God”.” Psalm 14:1.
4. They “call evil good and good evil”; they “put darkness for light and light for darkness”; they “put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20.
5. They have “become vain in their imaginations … professing themselves to be wise … and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible … changed the truth of God into a lie and worship(ped) and serve(d) the creature more than the Creator.”
6. They have dethroned the God of Creation and enthroned themselves following Satan’s advice that “ye shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5) and consequently become dictators.
7. “… the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live …”. (Ecclesiastes (9:3)
What to do? Again the Scriptures give us answers.
1. That we “are of God … and have overcome them (spirit of anti-christ which is even now already in the world): because greater is He that is in you than he (Satan) that is in the world.” John 4:4.
2. That the Lord Jesus said “I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18.
3. That we may boldly say “The Lord is my helper and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.” Hebrews 13:7.
4. That we continue “building up yourselves on your most holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost, keep(ing) yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Jude 20&21.
5. That we “be ready always to give an answer to every man (including politicians) that asketh you a reason of the hope, that is in you with meekness and fear.” 1 Peter 3:15.
6. That we are to be “watchmen, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence.” Isaiah 62:6.
7. However, it must always be done with “sound speech (and writing) that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” Titus 2:8.
If we are given the legal opportunity to make submissions to Parliament and have the legal right to write to or ring members of Parliament, let us blow the trumpet.
In conclusion, seeing that the Lord Jesus Christ “has chosen us out of the world” (John 15:19), let us therefore “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) but “live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:12.
J H Brinkman
School Manager
Saturday, 9 June 2007
8 June 2007 - The Age - Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Smacking-kids-should-not-be-outlawed-PM/2007/06/08/1181089286214.html
Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM
June 8, 2007 - 11:19AM
Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn't want the practice outlawed.
Mr Howard said he did not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.
After an anti-smacking law was passed in New Zealand last month, the Australian Democrats called for the federal government to protect children from physical punishment.
A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.
Asked if he smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: "No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.
"We were not into, sort of, physical discipline," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.
"That's us. I'm not telling other parents how to run their lives."
The prime minister said disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.
"I do not believe the law should be changed.
"There are laws at the moment which punish people who abuse children.
"But reasonable discipline is not abuse. Can't we just have a commonsense approach to these things?"
Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM
June 8, 2007 - 11:19AM
Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn't want the practice outlawed.
Mr Howard said he did not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.
After an anti-smacking law was passed in New Zealand last month, the Australian Democrats called for the federal government to protect children from physical punishment.
A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.
Asked if he smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: "No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.
"We were not into, sort of, physical discipline," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.
"That's us. I'm not telling other parents how to run their lives."
The prime minister said disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.
"I do not believe the law should be changed.
"There are laws at the moment which punish people who abuse children.
"But reasonable discipline is not abuse. Can't we just have a commonsense approach to these things?"
Friday, 1 June 2007
Larry Baldock's travel plans and the CIR Petition
Our Congratulations go this week to Andy Moore who has been organising a small team to work in Christchurch on Saturday mornings at the netball courts. He has collected more than a thousand in 3 weeks of activity just for a few hours on a Saturday. If you can help this Saturday or any Saturday pls contact Andy at 0211140751.
This Saturday we will be out at Blake Park in Mt Maunganui to collect amongst the netball, rugby and hockey spectators. All welcome. Pls call us on 5430600 if you can help.
BE A GOOD SPORT – Collect Signatures This Saturday at your local Sports Field
Some ideas
Unfortunately we have been denied permission to collect signatures outside the gates at Mystery Creek for the field days starting June 13th. We can work inside if we are able to connect with any other sites, so if anyone has any ideas, or friends with displays please let me know. Disapointed!!
This Saturday we will be out at Blake Park in Mt Maunganui to collect amongst the netball, rugby and hockey spectators. All welcome. Pls call us on 5430600 if you can help.
BE A GOOD SPORT – Collect Signatures This Saturday at your local Sports Field
Some ideas
Unfortunately we have been denied permission to collect signatures outside the gates at Mystery Creek for the field days starting June 13th. We can work inside if we are able to connect with any other sites, so if anyone has any ideas, or friends with displays please let me know. Disapointed!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
