Peter Tashkoff

ACT’s Spokesperson For Maori issues, Peter Tashkoff issued a press release on 26 June entitled Anti-Smacking Legislation Counterproductive And An Insult To Tino-Rangatiratanga. An excerpt is below…

Anti-smacking legislation is not simply useless, but is in fact making the problem worse. What’s more it is an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga of whanau, ACT New Zealand Maori Issues Spokesperson Peter Tashkoff said today.

“This well meaning legislation is based on a false ideology that attacks the Tino-Rangatiratanga of families, and has had the opposite effect to what even its supporters intended,” Mr. Tashkoff said.

“Why do we have this legislation to begin with? It was sold to us as a way to stop kids being violently assaulted by their caregivers, but now we see that if anything, things have gotten worse. This is known as the law of unintended consequences; it’s what you get when you pass laws based on ideology. The supporters of the bill are now claiming that was never the intention, and that somehow the bill was just meant to make us all nicer people.

“It’s rubbish of course, all that the bill does is move one notch closer to a situation where the people have no power and the state has it all. If a child refuses to go to school the whanau are not allowed to lift a finger to make them, yet a complete stranger working for the state is allowed to use whatever force is needed to do so. In the same way, you can’t smack a child that refuses to obey, but try not paying your taxes and just watch what extent the state can go to in order to force your obedience. This is an insult to the dignity of families and an insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga. When as a country did we ever buy into the ridiculous notion that strangers care more about kids than their parents do?

Great article, read the rest of it here.

MEDIA RELEASE 29 June 2009
Family First NZ is welcoming comments by a senior Labour MP that the Referendum wording is not confusing.

Pete Hodgson was a Minister of Health, Minister for Economic Development, Minister of Research, Science and Technology and Minister for Tertiary Education under the previous Labour government.

A constituent recently wrote to the MP and said:
“”Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in NZ” This is a most unambiguous question: given that the defense of reasonable force was repealed in the legislation passed last year as part of Sue Bradford’s bill and therefore parents who even lightly tapped their child could be prosecuted if the police elected to do so. It is misleading for anyone to say the above is an ambiguous question. It is patently clear what it is asking. The reason to argue for ambiguity is to try and confuse the issue in order to undermine the referendum. To refuse to vote on the basis of the ambiguity of the question is the ultimate act of fence sitting and self preservation. If one believes the question is wrong and the legislation is correct then one should vote accordingly!”

In response, Mr Hodgson simply wrote “agreed”.

“The smokescreen which has been created around the Referendum has simply been an attempt by some politicians to attempt to ridicule and dismiss an issue that they don’t want to resurface,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It has been a direct attack on the process of democracy. And the cost can only be attributed to their deafness on this issue.”

Family First is calling on the government to amend the anti-smacking law so that a non-abusive smack for the purpose of correction is not a criminal offence.

“300,000 signatures, an 80%-average in all the polls, and now a senior Labour MP, shows the country is not confused as to what they want on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS

MEDIA RELEASE 28 June 2009
Family First NZ is not surprised by a poll today that says that 77% of NZ’ers think the Referendum is a waste of money, and says that the government should save the taxpayer $9 million on a postal referendum and simply fix the anti-smacking law now as demanded by 80% of kiwis.

“It is incredible that in the midst of a recession, the government will be spending that amount of money to tell them what they already know – that the law should be fixed,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“But that is the unfortunate price of ‘political deafness’. The blame for having to even have a Referendum is pointed fairly and squarely at the politicians. Even supporters of the Referendum would say that the Referendum is a waste of money - but completely necessary in the circumstances.”

“The Referendum has resulted in a huge amount of time, energy and resources being spent collecting the 300,000-plus signatures to force the Referendum in the hope that the government would be spurred to amend the law and target the real causes of child abuse. Unfortunately they remained deaf.”

“The law can be easily fixed by removing the criminality of parents who use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children but at the same time having clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force. This could be achieved through adopting the Boscawen amendment - which mirrors Chester Borrow’s earlier amendment which the National party was supporting before being ‘whipped’ to vote for the current
confusing law.”

“The politicians have tried to paint the Referendum as confusing. They should try explaining the anti-smacking law to parents,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“NZ’ers are crying out for politicians to listen to the voice of the people and to tackle the real causes of child abuse, without criminalising and threatening good parents with investigation and interference from already overworked police and CYF social workers,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS

Barnardos asks kids about smacking, and lies about the research

Big News

MEDIA RELEASE - 25 June 2009
Family First NZ is calling on Barnardos, Plunket and other government funded agencies running the Yes Vote campaign for the upcoming Referendum to support a minor law change and save the country $9m.

“These groups constantly say that they don’t want to see good parents criminalized for light smacks. We agree,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “If they are being honest about desire, then they will have no problem lobbying the government to adopt the Boscawen Private Members Bill which is similar to the Borrows amendment.”

“On the Barnardos website, they say
‘One of the fears that people had about the law change was that it would result in parents being prosecuted for occasional inconsequential assaults (eg smacking a child lightly). No one wanted this to happen. Prosecutions for inconsequential assaults would upset families more than help them.’”

“Unfortunately that has been the exact outcome of the law, and that is one of the reasons why 80%-plus of the country want the law changed.”

“It is also ironic that these groups have refused to allow discussion on defining a level of what is reasonable correction, yet still expect the police to define a level that is inconsequential.”

“For the sake of NZ parents, we need to get this law right. Parents have a right to know whether they are parenting within the law or not, and not subject to the arbitrary application of the police and no such discretion required on CYF. Parents have been confused by these government groups suggesting one thing and then saying another thing.”

Family First currently has a number of cases – independently examined by a senior police officer - before the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers which show evidence of good families being criminalized, investigated, and prosecuted under the anti-smacking law.
ENDS

We’ve always argued that good parents are being criminalised and harmed by the anti-smacking law and we currently have a number of cases in front of both the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers for their consideration. These have been independently reviewed by a senior policeman.

In the latest case covered by the media we’ve been saying that this is a ‘good dad’. And we stand by that .

We would never support a parent who ‘repeatedly throws their child to the ground’. But in this case that NEVER happened!

How do we know ? Because we had an observer in the court who heard ALL the facts (unlike the media who relied only on what the witness alleged in the police report!)

In the same way that the anti-correction lobby groups use words like ‘beat’ ‘thrash’ and ‘violent’ to describe a loving parent who may use a smack to correct a child, in this current case, words count.

Please take a moment to read what our observer wrote (our emphasis added):

Dejected and disorientated. That’s how I feel after watching proceedings in the District Court today.

The police prosecuted him for pushing his son more than once, and the son either falling or stumbling more than once. It took place on the edge of a rugby field where the son was refusing to get on and join his team. A considerable battle of wills had escalated as the child protested his remiss father’s omission to bring the proper shorts in which to play. There was also some problem with the boy digging in his studs in a manner which made him more prone to stumbling as well.

A passer-by intervened and was told to mind her own business. This resulted in a letter to the principal of the school the boy attended. The principal referred the letter to the police. CYF were only involved after the police decided to prosecute. CYF interviewed the family and were happy that the boy was at no further risk . The father’s out of the blue arrest, fingerprinting, photographing and interview occurred 3 weeks after the incident took place.

In court today what I have described is what the police read out as their reason for charging the father with common assault. The  principle of justice whereby an accused person has the right to face his or her accuser no longer applies. It is up to the police to not just use their discretion about whether to prosecute but also to decide if the testimony has veracity . It is not up to the court to establish such.

The father pleaded guilty primarily because he cannot afford to defend the charge. He doesn’t qualify for legal aid and proceedings to date will cost him $1500 he doesn’t have. It hurt him badly to make this concession. He hadn’t known it was against the law to ’shove’ his boy. He has no record of violence and has never been in the dock before. His lawyer made an application for a section 106 discharge without conviction and the police say that due to the level of violence alleged , they will not contest this . The father has agreed to an anti-violence course which helps.

The judge took many minutes to read the many testimonials submitted in support of the father who has raised his two boys single-handedly for most of their lives. During this time, we - myself, the grandparents and partner - all remained very quiet. Apart from the father sniffing and blowing into a tissue in an attempt to hold his composure the room was silent. The father was ashen. 

Eventually the judge agrees to remand the father on bail to reappear in two months at which point he should have completed the course of anger management. We filed out with wet eyes and words failing. The lawyer tells the father that there is still no guarantee he will get a discharge without conviction in September. So the distress and uncertainty he was hoping to put behind him today will continue for weeks to come . He tells me he will never trust the police or justice system again.

This is, by their own description, a  middle-class well-educated couple. A couple who both work and try to raise their blended family well. The grandparents are bewildered. Angry. Like me. Disorientated and dejected. But that is nothing compared to what the father is feeling.

The bar has been lowered. The police can and will prosecute any degree of force on hearsay . Be warned.

There are some important issues here :
1. Why didn’t the woman witness report it immediately to the police rather than writing to the principal. Was she just annoyed at being told to mind her own business?
2. Why was the witness the only one concerned about the father’s actions when there were many many other parents present at the sportsfield who weren’t concerned?
3. Why did the police not interview other potential witnesses rather than rely on one passer-by?
4. The dad was trying to get the child on to the sports field to play. Why would he ‘push the child to the ground’ which would defeat that purpose?
5. Why prosecute if the police are willing to accept discharge without conviction? Do they have no other choice under this law?
5. By the police using the phrase ‘repeatedly pushed to the ground’ based on what only the witness said, they have portrayed a dad dealing with a strong-willed child as abusive
6. By the media using this terminology, they have done what the anti-smacking supporters have done. Words matter, and by changing ‘attempting to push the child on to the field to play’ to ‘repeatedly pushed to the ground’ they have changed the whole nature of the actions of the parent.
7. Does this mean that using force to remove a protesting child (who may also fall to the ground in protest - as they do!!) to ‘time-out’ is potentially an assault ???

There is an updated report in the NZ Herald today which has brought some balance to the coverage.

One other note :
The ‘perfect parent lobby’ aka Barnados, Plunket, Families Commission and Deborah Morris believe that parents should NEVER get tired, frustrated, or angry and should ALWAYS correct bad behaviour with precision and perfection!

They are still looking for their ‘poster parent’!!!

As stated at the beginning, good parents are being criminalised by a flawed law.

We will continue to fight against a law that does that. We’d be keen to hear your feedback on this issue.

Thanks for speaking up on this issue, and please encourage people to visit our website www.voteNO.org.nz

Stuff.co.nz 22 June 2009
Opponents of the so-called “anti-smacking” law say the Government would ignore a non-binding referendum on the legislation at its peril.

Proponents of the upcoming referendum, which asks “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” today launched a campaign to promote a “no” vote. They want the 2007 law sponsored by Green MP Sue Bradford, which removed the defence of reasonable force in child abuse cases, to be repealed.

The referendum has been labelled as a $9 million waste of time as Prime Minister John Key and Labour leader Phil Goff both say their parties won’t change the current law, and that there is little evidence it was not working.

But campaigners for a “no” vote, who included Family First director Bob McCoskrie, Family and Child Trust advocate Bev Adair and referendum sponsor Sheryl Savill, said a strong vote in their favour would send a powerful signal to the Government.
READ MORE

MEDIA RELEASE 22 June 2009

Groups opposing the anti-smacking legislation have launched their website www.voteNO.org.nz for the upcoming anti-smacking Referendum.

“The website features background information, frequently asked questions, significant quotes, cartoons, polls and downloadable resources,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“One of the highlights of the website is a 90 second video presentation by radio and tv personality Simon Barnett. For busy people, Simon summarises the purpose of the Referendum and why kiwis should vote NO.”

“The ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section is a concise factual analysis on the anti-smacking law, why and how it should be amended, what are the real causes of child abuse, and how should we tackle our unacceptable rate of child abuse and deaths.”

The website is supported by a number of community and advocacy groups including Family First NZ, Sensible Sentencing Trust, the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ, For the Sake of our Children Trust, Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust, Family and Child Trust, Focus on the Family NZ, Crosspower Ministries, Lifespring Pasefika Trust, and Unity for Liberty who were responsible for collecting a large chunk of the 310,000 signatures which forced the Referendum.

“More features will be added to the website as the Referendum gets closer but this website will quickly deal with the many misleading statements that have been made recently regarding the anti-smacking law and the Referendum,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Ultimately it’s not about the organisations or individuals supporting the website but the 300,000+ people who signed a petition demanding a say on this issue, and the polls that show that an overwhelming majority of kiwis who don’t equate a smack with child abuse but want the real causes of child abuse tackled.”
ENDS