The Forum on the Family Conference
September 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am by David FarrarI attended most of the Forum on the Family Conference on Friday, in Auckland, as I was speaking in the afternoon on blogging and social media.
A few amusing anecdotes from the conference. Chatting to an MP at morning tea with Madeleine Flannagan, who introduced herself as the author of the No 1 Christian Blog in New Zealand. I quipped that must make me the author of the No 1 hedonistic blog 
There were speeches from both the Children’s Commissioner, and one of the Families Commissioners. Both were well received – better so than a year ago I suspect!
The afternoon session I found the most interesting as you had Phil Goff speaking, then another speaker, and then John Key. It was the first time I had seen Goff and Key speak in the same place.
I have to say I think Phil Goff spoke very well. It was not the most naturally friendly audience, and he generally handled himself skilfully. I’d partly forgotten how competent he is, due to a couple of errors of judgement since becoming Opposition Leader. He was a very safe pair of hands as Foreign and Trade Minister, and was also a pretty good Minister in the 1980s.
In fact the thought that came to mind, watching him, was that if he does become Prime Minister one day (which I think is unlikely) he will be a fairly competent one. I don’t mean I’ll at all like his policies, but he would be up to the job (something Lange sadly was not).
Goff handled the numerous questions on the anti-smacking law quite well, and also got quite ballsy with a couple of questions. He said he wished people would get as worked up about child abuse as they do about how to spell Wanganui. But most ballsy was in response to a request to have an independent appeal board against CYFS decisions. Goff said CYFS, while not perfect, is not the problem in New Zealand. It is the families who abuse and kill their kids, or allow it to happen.
So overall a good performance from Goff, and he gets kudos for accepting the invite. But, and there is always a but, the rating would be even higher if he had not been followed by John Key.
While Goff delivered a prepared speech well, Key spoke pretty much off the cuff and managed to engage the audience very effectively. And he got even more vigorous questioning over the anti-smacking law, but really interacted with the questioners. He gave examples, didn’t use sound bites, and I thought really connected. That is not to say people agreed with his answers, but it was a impressive performance. The example he gave was captured by the Herald:
Responding to another question from Mary Paki of Otara, he quoted a school principal in his electorate who told the parents of a Samoan boy in his school report that the boy needed to behave better.
He said the boy’s father went to the principal’s office the next morning and told her: “You don’t tell me how to discipline my child.”
To reinforce the point, the father brought the boy back later and asked him to lift his shirt to show “welt marks and blood running down the kid’s back”.
“That has got absolutely nothing to do with section 59 [the parental discipline law] except to say that we have to send a message through some communities that actually there is a big, big difference between a light smack and violence,” Mr Key said.
“That is why the Maori Party got on the phone [after the referendum] and begged me not to change the law.”
I’m not a fan of the law, and support the Boscawen Bill. But I’ve been waiting a couple of years for someone to make the argument that Key did – that some people or communities do not know the difference between an acceptable light smack and violence. This is one of the few arguments for the Section 59 repeal that I think had merit. It had to be balanced against the greater uncertainty it would give good parents under the law.
Ironically though that argument worked best for Bradford’s original bill – to simply repeal Section 59. That would have had the virtue of simplicity and would have meant a clear message could be sent. But the version of the law that got passed is far from simple. It in fact still allows an undefined level of reasonable force in numerous circumstances.
A couple of other people I spoke to said much the same as what I thought. They were impressed with Goff’s speech, but then were slightly less impressed after Key’s speech.
I’ve seen Key speak a few times now, and then do Q&A. He has a rare ability to really engage with the questioner, and basically comes over as someone who talks with you, not at you.
My own presentation seemed to go down well. In a fit of good timing, I was able to talk about the ACORN scandal in the US as a great example of how the Internet has empowered individuals to make a difference. 20 year old Hannah Giles, and one other, managed to basically destroy ACORN by capturing on video the widespread condoning of illegal activities such as under-age prostitution.
The Washington Times editorial made a good point:
Do you think your tax dollars should be used to help those who want to open a house of prostitution and illegally bring underage girls into the United States as “sex workers”? As you may have seen on television over the last few days, the taxpayer-funded ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has been doing just that.
Who exposed this latest bit of corruption at ACORN? — The FBI? The local police? A congressional investigating committee? The mainstream media? No, no, no, no. It was a 20-year-old-girl named Hannah Giles and a 25-year-old law student and investigative journalist named James O’Keefe.
The results of their expose has been ACORN has been dumped by the Census Bureau and the Senate voted 83-7 to stop funding them and the House voted 345-75 to do the same.
Related posts:
- Top 10 shortcomings
- Another conference hits the dust
- Family First rates the leaders
- Freedom Forum Day II Morning
September 21st, 2009 at 10:13 am
The Address-in-Reply debate in the House?
[DPF: In a non confrontational sense]
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 10:21 am
I don’t know who the woman behind me was but she claimed to be from a CYFS team and clearly told John Key the amendment wasn’t working. he artfully deflected as he has always done on this issue.
he ducked my question but did clearly articulate that he understood it was illegal to smack for correction and that parents broke the law when they did so.
What was really sad was his admission at the end of his speech that because of his inability to go to the offending subcultures/ethnic groups and clearly articulate that what you do as a norm is wrong, he was happy to screw around 90% of ordinary parents.
Vote:He claimed the Maori and Samoan leaders all came to him to plead for him to keep the amendment to force their people to not Bash their kids!
lazy and silly thinking.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:25 am
Ohh and I found it profoundly disturbing to hear him state several times that “I will instruct” the police in what they must do!
That the PM thinks he can control the NZPolice in any way is a cause for concern.
One of the reasons he was elected was to deal to that mentality.
Vote:It begs the question what happens when he is turffed out as he will be someday, who replaces him, what will they say to the NZPolice?
How will they change the (so sensible ) guideleines/Procedures that CYFS and NZPolice are acting under now?
September 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
“I’m not a fan of the law, and support the Boscawen Bill. But I’ve been waiting a couple of years for someone to make the argument that Key did – that some people or communities do not know the difference between an acceptable light smack and violence. This is one of the few arguments for the Section 59 repeal that I think had merit. It had to be balanced against the greater uncertainty it would give good parents under the law.”
That’s not a good arguement – that’s stupid.
If people can’t tell the difference between speeding and driving under the limit, we don’t make it illegal to drive at any speed.
Instead we educate. I’ve made the point many times that the government has avoided doing this for many years, pushing towards the smacking ban even when that was not official government policy.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 11:36 am
>>>“That is why the Maori Party got on the phone [after the referendum] and begged me not to change the law.”
And so finally we hear the real reason
Vote:National, please get rid of the Maori Party
September 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
It is pleasing to see both Mr Key and Mr Goff unwilling to pander to the kid-thumping lobby. They are to be congratulated.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Let me congratulate them Robert. Congratulations to both of them for being too weak to stand up and say “This is a problem affecting primarily Maori and Pacific Island communities and we are going to go to the root of the problem and address it properly”.
Vote:What a pair of heroes, perhaps you could invite them boating?
September 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Key, basically dodged the difficult questions as did Goff earlier. I do not agree that Key has a rare ability to really engage with the questioner. If Key had attempted to engage with people he would know the reasons why people strongly object to this badly flawed law. I understand it was drafted by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Why does Key defend it- the only thing I can think of is long term political pragmatism. He might need to call on the Maori Party in the future.
He was asked how anything other than a law change will address issue of children coming home and informing their parents that it is against the law for them to smack them. In other words this law is undermining parental authority. Key ignored the real question and went back to his mantra about parents are not being prosecuted for a light smack and if they were “I” would change the law.
For many this law was the final straw. Underage girls are given the pill without parent’s knowledge and if that fails to work an abortion is arranged again without parent’s knowledge. Goff was asked about this but changed the topic to abortion in general. The question was what will Labour would do about the law that allows underage girls to have abortions without their parents’ knowledge. The issue is not about abortion but parental rights. It is outrageous that schools arrange for contraceptives without parents’ knowledge. It is illegal to have sex under the age of 16. Government employees should not assist in breaking the law. If Members of Parliament think the age of consent should be lower let them lower it and take their chances at the next election. If Members of Parliament think smacking should be against the law then change it to how Bradford wanted and expect the police to enforce it and take their chances at the next election.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
As long as people see this as a problem found in particular, ‘other’ communities, we will fail. High profile, and appalling, cases do emerge from some communities. Leaders and wider members in those communities are as appalled by this as anyone and are striving to respond where and when possible. But, the problem of family violence has no colour. It happens in the leafiest suburbs with the nicest cars parked outside, as it happens elsewhere. The ideology and practice that ‘loving correction’ (that is, the assumed right to thump a kid because, somewhow, the kid is the ‘property’ of the family and can therefore be treated in terms of protection from violence quite differently from other age-groups and parts of society, contributes nothing to the solution of the endemic problem of family violence. Messrs Key and Goff know that. So, they can boat with me any day on this issue.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
As I understand it, that’s not quite the case. It’s illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 16, but it is legal for people under a certain age to have sex with each other if it’s within a certain small age gap. So if a 15-year-old boy has sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, neither is breaking the law, and any government agencies assisting them in doing it as safely as possible are not assisting in breaking the law.
I’m open to correction on that one, as I’m not sure where to look to back it up.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Ryan – I don’t believe that is the case.
You’re looking for ss 134 and 134A of the Crimes Act.
I understand Labour looked at changing this a few years back. Some conservative-type groups kicked up a stink and the Government decided it wasn’t worth the hassle.
ref: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327382.html
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Ryan, at the end of this post is the law. There may be an amendment but I do not think so. The police are meant to use discretion as with the anti smacking law. They would generally not prosecute with a 15 year old girl and a boy of 16 or 17. However, they some time do not use their discretion wisely. See case below involving an 11 year old girl.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477075
The problem is when the state acts like they have primacy over children ahead of the parents they often get it wrong. If the State wants undermine parental authority then the State should not be penalising parents who do not send their children to school. I can understand fathers avoiding child support. When they are married the State undermine their authority. When they separate thay are treated as second class parents by the State.
Sexual conduct with young person under 16
(1) Every one who has sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
(2) Every one who attempts to have sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
(3) Every one who does an indecent act on a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
(4) No person can be convicted of a charge under this section if he or she was married to the young person concerned at the time of the sexual connection or indecent act concerned.
(5) The young person in respect of whom an offence against this section was committed cannot be charged as a party to the offence if the person who committed the offence was of or over the age of 16 years when the offence was committed.
(6) In this section,—
(a) young person means a person under the age of 16 years; and
(b) doing an indecent act on a young person includes indecently assaulting the young person.
Section 134: substituted, on 20 May 2005, by section 7 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 41).
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Ah, okay, thanks, Graham and Chuck. I was confusing the proposed law change with an actual law change.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“Some conservative-type groups kicked up a stink and the Government decided it wasn’t worth the hassle.”
And rightfully so. Phil Goff floated the idea of lowering the age to 12 with the proviso that there only be a 2 year age difference.
That would have been great. Not only would 12 year olds be able to inform their parents that it is against the law for them to smack them but they are now legally old enough to have sex.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I wonder if they would have given the ‘married couple’ price to people in a civil union.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Yu6lJst3lkM/SrbX8ql7eHI/AAAAAAAAFI8/W5DKNwD218s/s1600-h/nzforum-webposter+09.jpg
The fact you have to be married to get their couple price pretty much demonstrates the underlying agenda of the group hiding behind the line ‘family’.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Smacking 12 year olds? What sort of smack is going to make an impact on a 12 yr old?
If a 12 year old comes home from school and tries a legal argument against being smacked then the pre-school discipline training has not worked very well.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Robert, why is it that the anti-smacking control freaks find it necessary to greatly embellish the facts if not out and out lie? 88% of parents simply want the State to but out when it comes reasonably physical discipline. There is a difference between thumping a child and smacking one. Those who do not know the difference should not have children. Most parents think smacking a naughty toddler on the legs or bum is reasonable. BTW – would you agree with your leader that 12 should be the age of consent?
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“Those who do not know the difference should not have children.”
As has been suggested already today there a quite a few parents who don’t seem to know the difference.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Cerium, I generally agree with your point although it could be appropriate occasionally like when a teenager tells his or her mother to get fucked. The point I was making though was mainly about Goff’s silly idea of lowering the age of consent.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I tend to agree on the age of consent.
Re teenagers telling parents to get fucked, I don’t think a smack is going to make any difference at that stage, especially not a positive or constructive difference, and in a lot of cases the teenager is going to be more capable of doing the “smacking”.
Most teenagers rebel to some degree, no matter how well brought up they were. Some rebel out of sight, some confront their parents. There can be little the parent can do that will help the situation, apart from wait it out.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
@ Chuck Bird
Nothing quite like clouding an issue – the age of consent is not the issue here (though, personally, I am quite happy for it to rest as it is). But the notion of “reasonable physical discipline” is as loose as the day is long – your reasonable might well be my unreasonable. And the ‘angels on the head of a pin’ argument about smacking versus thumping – your smacking is my thumping. If it comes down to accusations of ‘control freakism’, what is more control freakish than the sustained desire to preserve a legal right to hit people? For that is what you wish to see protected in law: a right to hit people, forbidden pretty much everywhere else.
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The age of consent thing was trying to fix an anomly for how guys and girls are treated. Also do you think criminlising sex between minors is really the proper way to deal with the issue?
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
To think Andy Moore wrote you’d rather make like Colin Espiner and eat your blog rather than publicly admit you were there! Actually we took all weekend to get our own report on the Forum online too.
I agree with you on your assessment of Goff and Key’s performance. Both spoke well and held their ground in the Q&A even if both of them had some weasel moments in responding to questions.
David your talk was very good – you should your list of blogger scalps as that was very impressive seeing them all together.
PS. I should point out that I am not the author of the No 1 Christian Blog in New Zealand I am one of the authors of the No 1 Christian Blog in New Zealand.
PPS. Said MP did ask for my URL and you did say you’d email it to him… ?
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Robert, those who do not know the difference between a smack and hit should not have children because they are not very bright. The referendum referred to a smack not a hit. Those chose to hit or thump their children will continue to do so regardless of the law. If Key thinks it is his job to monitor the police to see how they enforce this law – what next? How about the age of consent? The police already use discretion there. If Key thinks they are not using it properly do you it appropriate for him to publicly announce he will be monitoring the police? That is not how things should wore in a democracy. Parliament makes the laws. The police prosecute if they think the law has been broken and the Court detremine if in fact the law has been broken.
Key should stick to his job and let the police do thiers.
Smacking debate won’t be going away in hurry
4:00AM Monday Sep 21, 2009
By Audrey Young
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10598624
If anyone is in the Christchurch area come and here John Boscawen and others
Boscawen Challenges Local MPs To Front
John Boscawen MP, ACT New Zealand
DID YOU VOTE “NO” IN THE ANTI – SMACKING REFERENDUM?
Do you think National and Labour should listen to you?
http://section59.blogspot.com/
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Jeff did you read my link.
See case below involving an 11 year old girl.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477075
Do you think Goff’s idea of dropping the age to 12 even with the proviso of a 2 year age difference was a good idea?
Vote:September 21st, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Chuck
Firstly I have read it before. Note she is 11, no 12.
Vote:Secondly I dount the guy was less than 13
Third if the guy was 12 do you think the right way to deal with it is to label him a criminal.
Fourth do you think that making the law so it treats boys and girls teh same is a bad idea.
Fifth do you think a 15yo boy should be criminalised for sleeping with a 15yo girl, if so how do you think it helps matters.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Jeff, the point I was making by highlighting the article was that a school might arrange the pill for an underage girl with the belief that her boyfriend is about the same age when he is in fact much older. I do think it appropriate for the school to give out the pill in the first place but if they boy was much older they would be assisting in serious law breaking.
In regards your third point it depends what you mean by label. I think it should be illegal as light smacking now is. I do not think charging two young children in court is in their best interest. However, changing the law as Goff suggested would increase underage sex as it would have the government’s stamp of approval.
I agree the law should be the same for boys and girls and men and women. It should also be enforced the same way. This is not always the case now for men and women. Assault is treated differently for example.
I have almost answered your fifth point. If parents become aware that two 15 year olds have been having sex for 6 months it might be unrealistic for the parents to expect them to stop until they are both 16. The parents of the girl may arrange for her to be on the pill. However, it should be the parents call not the schools.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
I like your post chuck.
Vote:September 24th, 2009 at 8:51 am
As usual, scumbag pseudo-journalism is working to derail one of the few organisations dedicated to the less well off in that dog eat dog of a country.
These young people are doing the work of God and big business (and the Republican Party) in destroying the work of a charitable body. The RP has always been unnerved by the organisations citizen enrolment activities as they see it as acting against them.
I suggest you go to Acorn’s home page and see their response.
But of course, facts have never figured high in the priorities of the far-right. Prejudice is so much more satisfying. Just as in the smacking debate. Luckily, the leftist leader of the National Party (unchallenged because he managed the one thing National demands -win an election) has taken a principled stance on this issue. Pity he has let us down of Afghanistan, though.
Finally, as regards the so-called smacking referendum, it goes to show how wise parliament was to ensure these referendums were non-binding. They would be a perfect way to cement a tyranny of a sadly misinformed majority. California’s binding referendums are a primary cause of the absolute financial mess that state is in.
Vote: