NZ First Set To Gain from Anti-Smacking Law Policy

Media Release 31 July 2011
Family First NZ is welcoming the policy announced by NZ First today to fix the anti-smacking law, and says the party will benefit in the polls from the announcement. 

“Independent polling of NZ’ers has found a significant voter bloc for a political party that commits to amending the anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. 

In the poll of 1,000 people undertaken by Curia Market Research in March, respondents were asked “If a political party promised that amending the law to allow light correctional smacking was a non negotiable policy at the next election, would that make you more likely to vote for them, or less likely, or make no difference to your likely vote?” 

32% said they would be more likely (up from 22% in 2010) and 10% said less likely (down from 12% in 2010). Just over half said that it would not affect their vote. The response was strongest from men, but also from younger people (18-30 age bracket – 48% more likely to vote for a party that amends the law). 

“That’s a potential gain of 22% for a political party, which is a significant voter bloc. Being an election year, the politicians will be forced to listen to and act on the views of NZ’ers. National benefitted from that significant voter bloc at the last election. This election, NZ First may not only promise but could be in the box seat to deliver a change to a law that is criminalising good parents and doing to nothing to solve our unacceptable rates of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie. 

“The government hoped that by ignoring parents, the smacking debate would disappear, but while good parents who are trying to raise law abiding productive members of society are investigated, threatened, and criminalised for simply doing their job, the debate will not be going away – and nor will the level of opposition.” 

“NZ First stands to gain from that opposition with today’s announcement,” says Mr McCoskrie. 

See full poll results


7 comments for “NZ First Set To Gain from Anti-Smacking Law Policy

  1. Massoud
    1 August 2011 at 2:39 am

    I would suggest Mr Peters first cast his shrewd eye over this poll and then suddenly discovered a new fervour for repealing the anti-smacking legislation. Always the smiling opportunist, Mr Peters, and so beautifully groomed!

    If Mr Peters thought the polls showed the masses wanted to bring back slavery he would gleefully make it one of his election planks.

    The guys a charlatan, albeit a charming one, and a very skilled political mammal.

    Don’t get too excited by this line of political bunk. Any Family First supporter who falls for this tosh possibly also believes in the tooth fairy.

  2. pete
    1 August 2011 at 6:32 pm

    that’s great news…it’s a shame much of their other policy is rubbish. i doubt this will affect much at all (unless the major parties take it on board as well)

  3. steve
    2 August 2011 at 6:34 pm

    What Winston failed to mention was that the first anti-smacking law proposed by a NZ politician was drawn up by NZ FIRST MP Brian Donnally.He also seems to have forgotten that of the 7 NZ FIRST MPs in the last parliament 4 voted in favour of the anti-smacking law.Still NZ FIRST’s Damascus road experience may cause the other parties who ignored the New Zealand people to reconsider their positions.

  4. Bob
    2 August 2011 at 8:00 pm

    Don’t think that’s right Steve. It was drawn up by Sue Bradford. But Brian Donnelly and a few other NZ First MP’s did vote for it – all who have left now 🙂

  5. steve
    3 August 2011 at 12:57 am

    You’re wrong Bob.Here it is from the horses mouth.

  6. Bob
    3 August 2011 at 12:06 pm

    That actually shows that Brian Donnelly wanted to do what we wanted – just to clarify “reasonable force”

    This is from the horses mouth about banning smacking

  7. steve
    3 August 2011 at 6:24 pm

    In the debate on Bradford’s bill,Donnelly stated that his bill would have repealed section 59.He also opposed the Burrows amendment as it would have defined an acceptable level of “violence”(his word).He was just like Bradford only better looking in a swimsuit.

Comments are closed.