April 30, 2008...6:09 am
Fortuitous setback for child-hitters
Good news. Family Last’s campaign to force a referendum on allowing its supporters to hit their children has been bowled a googly by the Parliament’s Office of the Clerk ruling some 55,000 signatures on their petition invalid.
They have two months to gather a further 16,000 valid signatures. If they succeed, voters at the general election later this year will be asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
When I wrote about this issue back in January, I fully expected their petition to succeed, much as it dismayed me.
The petition followed the passing last year by an overwhelming majority in Parliament of Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal the Crimes Act Section 59 defence allowing parents to use force against their children for the purposes of correction or punishment.
As I wrote in January, the legal issue was quite simple. Why should the law allow me to hit my own children, yet if I walked to my front gate and hit some other child, or an adult, I would be arrested? It was legally bizarre. We hear a lot in this country about the principle of “one law for all.” That principle encompasses equal protection for all under the law. Why should children, society’s most vulnerable members, not have the same protection against assault as adults?
There were urgent reasons for changing this anomaly. Section 59 had allowed some parents in high-profile court cases to escape conviction despite having committed violent assaults with weapons on their children. Juries had bought defence lawyers’ arguments that Section 59 covered such assaults.
Under the Citizens Initiated Referendum Act, anyone who can raise a petition signed by 10 per cent of registered voters can force the holding of a referendum. The pro-smackers collected some 324,500, which should have been ample, as only 285,027 were required.
But the Office of the Clerk ruled that some 55,000 were invalid for being duplicated, illegible or otherwise unable to be confirmed. The organisers have two more months to make up the shortfall.
Interestingly, “Family First” seemed so convinced it had the numbers that it issued a statement at 9.48am yesterday, before the Clerk’s announcement, about “the success of the petition.”
“Family First” spokesman Bob McCroskie is being reported as confident that this will be achieved. He is probably right, but it is good to see a setback for such a nasty campaign.
Citizens initiated referendums are not binding on Parliament, so even if the pro-smacking referendum got majority support, the law would only be changed back to allowing parents to hit their children if a majority of MPs supported a law change to do that. Unless National has a big about-face, this is unlikely. David Farrar seems to have forgotten that National voted for the Bradford bill, which was passed in Parliament by 113 votes to seven last May 16.
22 Comments
April 30, 2008 at 6:14 am
I am just showing my class “Once Were Warriors.” Maybe if people watched that again, they’d be put off hitting members of their own families. When I moved to NZ years ago, in 1992, I remember being shocked by data I found that showed a very high murder rate, almost all of it from domestic violence. I have returned to the US now, but I still think of NZ as a second home. I felt very safe there, but I know that here and there the greatest physical danger comes from members of one’s own family. I hope the petition goes down in flames.
April 30, 2008 at 7:14 am
People are looking at their own experience and extrapolating to everyone else.
The problem is that the government tries to make a one size fits all rule for society and has told us it is never ok to smack. Some people were smacked and felt it was appropriate, quick and effective (it all depends on context and timing), and the Otago Interdisciplinary Health and Development Study supports this.
PS I never signed the petiton as I didn’t get off my bum, but I will and I’ll spread it around family and neighbours.
April 30, 2008 at 10:52 am
That’s not good news.I’m disapointed, though predictably not surprised, their signatures got cut back to under the 10 percent threshold.
The government rammed through a massively unpopular and unnessasary law against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate, the electorate then tried to fight back the only they could and got cut back.
This law has nothing to do with the ’smacking’ [etc] and everything to do with the level of control and intrusion of the state, and the increasing erosion of the rights of the people. That is why I am in favour of a referendum on the issue to remind the politcians that they are not there for themselves but for us.
I didn’t sign the petition, but if given the chance, I am going to go out of my way to sign it.
April 30, 2008 at 10:53 am
Hoqw would you define a violent assault, in the context of your post?
April 30, 2008 at 1:25 pm
the Otago Interdisciplinary Health and Development Study supports this
Well, I don’t recall precisely what it was the study supported, but I recall a major american psychological body pointing out that unless smacking can be shown to be beneficial, as opposed to harmless, then people are still hitting their children, with the intention of hurting them, for no good reason.
April 30, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Well now you mention it Lyndon, such studies do exist, and they look at how smacking is applied.
Current research indicates that customary physical discipline is not associated with any more adverse outcomes in children than is any other type of corrective discipline, therefore intentional hurt doesnt come into it in terms of being beneficial. This is not the “severe discipline” that Poneke describes, but doesn’t defnine.
April 30, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’ve found as the mother of four small boys, that a light smack can be beneficial in their immediate behavior. But I firmly believe I have never done anything worth a criminal sentence. I also firmly believe that I have the best interests in my kids because I love them and I want the best for them.
I think that parental authority and responsibility shouldn’t be undermined by the State, unless those children are in danger. I firmly believe that a light smack on the bottom doesn’t consist of danger.
Family First is right when it points out that strong, vital, healthy families are the best at looking after kids. There promotion of families sitting down to dinner together is a fantastic way of building the family. Likewise I think their spotlights on the sexualisation of young children, especially girls, is really important.
If the Government really wants to help kids from physical punishment, then it has to make families less stressed. Poverty, gambling, drinking and the such like are causes of stress, and our Government has allowed easy access to cheap alcohol, pokie machines and overall the poor are poorer. Is it any wonder child abuse is so terrible?
May 1, 2008 at 4:46 am
I’m assuming that “smacking” is the NZ way of saying “spanking” (US)?
Now, I don’t think the world would be any worse off if nobody ever spanked/smacked their kids. But I’m not sure making it illegal is the way to go. If you can’t show there are negative outcomes for kids who are spanked, then what’s the basis for making it illegal? I know you say that you can’t spank any other kids but your own, but there are lots of things you can only do to your kid, like grounding them in their room all weekend. If you did that to the neighbor’s kid, that’d be illegal confinement, kidnapping and so on.
Also, what price do offenders pay - a fine? Jailtime? Can they even have their kids taken away from them? If the punishment for offenders isn’t serious enough to actually deter future spankings, this may make situations worse, not better. And do we want to take potentially stressed out parents who have only spanked their kids, and add a fine, or jailtime, or whatever it is to their list of things to stress about?
I guess I just don’t see spanking as abuse. And if a parent is “spanking” their kids with enough force/regularity/whatever for it to be harmful to the kids (leaving bruises, mental abuse, ect.) shouldn’t pre-existing, regular old child abuse laws cover that? If it’s causing the child harm, I see that as the point where the line is crossed from your run-of-the-mill spanking and *into* abuse (which we already have laws for).
To finish up, there was a mother and her toddler at the bus stop with me the other day. The three year old ran out into the street suddenly and she had to move incredibly fast to yank him back to the sidewalk before he was hurt by the many cars going by. Once he was safe she said “NO” , gave him a light smack or two on the bum and told him not to run in the street . I don’t fault her for that, or think it should be illegal.
Of course, I’m assuming that smacking = spanking…if not, and it’s something more serious, then I obviously have no idea what I’m talking about, and you can just completely ignore me, thanks.
May 1, 2008 at 6:03 am
I’m not speaking as a New Zealander but as a young person with first-hand experience of what smacking can mean.
In principle, I believe smacking children for their own good is perfectly fine - it’s quick, and it’s effective. The problem is, not only in NZ but all over the world, that most cases of ’smacking’ I’ve come across were actually parents letting out their aggressions on their children, all under the guise of parenting. With such laws legalising this, smacking will continue to get out of control in the occasional case and nobody will do anything about it - not only can this be psychologically harmful, it’s downright disrespectful (children are humans too, and they ought to be protected from violence as well as any other living being).
I’m not necessarily blaming the parents, after all they’re as human as anybody else and it would be a better step to nurture healthy functioning families and protect them from stress, but as I believe this is impossible I stick to the opinion that parenting ought to be made free from violence, and if necessary this must be ensured via the law.
May 1, 2008 at 11:20 am
@Tuesday
spanking=smacking (yes)
one of the reasons behind the repeal of s.59 was that some people were using s.59 to defend themselves when charged with abusing their children. S.59 allowed ‘reasonable force’ when correcting a child and then we had cases like the one where a parent beat their child with a riding crop and successfully used s.59 to defend the charge. The repeal of s.59 was to stop this loophole. I would be very surprised if a parent was charged with abusing their child if the story you described happened in NZ and as far as I know no-one has been charged for a simple smack to the bottom of their child since the repeal of s.59.
May 1, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The question was asked: spanking (US) = smacking (NZ)?
I do not know the common US usage. But in New Zealand the words may infer different meanings.
They both can take the meaning of being slapped with or as if with the open hand. They can be used interchangeably.
But “spanking” often infers brisk or rapid slaps, especially as a punishment. “Smacking” often infers a sharp quick stroke, carried out according to smacking proponents, in a correctional rather than a punishment sense. For example, a parent’s immediate action after a child has run across the road nearly been hit by a car - A desire to ensure that the child has associated his/her actions with something unpleasant, and a “lesson” has been learned.
I’m not endorsing either side of the New Zealand debate here. But the heart of the debate probably centres around what actions are appropriate in the example I’ve given above. Anti smacking proponents suggest that even in that example, there are just as effective alternatives as the smacking response.
New Zealand dairy farmers would not like to see spanking completely forbidden. “To spank the cows” is a way of saying “milking the cows”, although I’m unsure of how common that usage is now.
May 1, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I supported the repeal of S59 for the reasons some have already mentioned. It was clear then and remains clear that the police will not be troubling themselves or anyone else with trivial parental disciplinary smacks. So the two parents who have posted here worried about that needn’t worry about it. I have two kids. I don’t fear this law change at all.
New Zealand law is full of laws that potentially make us all criminals every day. The anti-porn law introduced under Shipley’s watch makes everyone guilty if they possess or “make available” objectionable material…..whether you know or not. So couriers and rail services and ISPs are all technically guilty of “making available” these materials if they have ever carried a package or provided access to a web site or delivered an e-mail with objectionable material inside or attached.
I used to work for an ISP (IBM) and we looked very carefully into this. Yes, we were breaking the law every minute of every day. No, we would never be prosecuted unless the police decided it was appropriate.
The same logic applies to the present law with respect to disciplining children. The new law gives reasonably clear guidelines as to what is acceptable. The police will prosecute reported behaviour that isn’t acceptable.
Smacking a toddler who wants to put their finger in a power socket won’t see anyone being prosecuted.
What DID annoy me was deliberate confusion by “Family First” of two very separate issues. They attempted to portray a prudent response by CYPFS to a report of violence against a child as a consequence of the new law.
It is not.
CYPFS would have to investigate any reports of abuse of a child whether the old law was still in place or the new one.
It is the police who make the call regarding prosecution - a separate issue entirely.
“Boo Hiss” to Family First for maintaining the tradition of misleading people who don’t know the facts that has characterised the anti side of the debate around this law.
May 1, 2008 at 5:19 pm
If the government cares so much about stopping child abuse, how come nothing has been done to stop it (especially after the Nia Glassie case of last year).?I agree with a previous comment that the anti-smacking bill is more about a government drunk on control than it is about stopping child abuse. Labour keeps pouring welfare payments onto people who blow them on drugs./booze/cigs rather than the children that they were meant for, and nothing has changed for many at-risk kids, I bet. A light smack on the bum is not child abuse, never was, never will be. Good on Family First and more kudos to them. Labour and the Greens have indeed shown breathtaking arrogance on this issue. ( I’m not impressed with National’s about-face on it, either). Family First will get the signatures they need, it is a matter of time, and good for them. The referendum should be binding, but that’s so-called democracy for you.
May 2, 2008 at 11:45 am
Tanya: Your comments cause me to heave a sign of relief that referenda aren’t binding. Seriously. See my own comment above for some explanation of the law and why Family First are being dishonest.
First you accuse the government of being “drunk on control” , then you criticise them for NOT stopping child abuse - apparently because they aren’t sitting in the home of every beneficiary to ensure they are spending their benefits properly.
Your two statements are completely inconsistent with each other.
May 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm
ladybeckett,
“… not only in NZ but all over the world, that most cases of ’smacking’ I’ve come across were actually parents letting out their aggressions on their children, all under the guise of parenting. With such laws legalising this …”
This is a common misconception with the repealed part of Section 59 (S59).
S59 did not legalise child abuse.
When discussing this issue, I would much rather that people left their irrational emotions at the door.
S59 provided a defence to assault, if the act was reasonable AND was for the purpose of controlling your own children.
If a parent cannot meet that burden, then it is assault and there were and are laws under which they could and can be charged.
IMHO, the prior S59, was both concise and simple, unlike the present fiasco.
Max Call,
“I would be very surprised if a parent was charged with abusing their child if the story you described happened in NZ and as far as I know no-one has been charged for a simple smack to the bottom of their child since the repeal of s.59.”
That is not really the point. The fact of the matter is the law says it is illegal, and as such a parent that takes such action (i. e. smacking - but not in reference to the above instance) is now committing a criminal offence.
Do you really expect that, given the current climate, you would have a dearth of prosecutions? But you can rest assured, that it will come in the future.
In the example quoted above there was nothing illegal in the mother’s actions, as her defence would granted under the “prevent harm to self or others” exception.
May 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Steve Withers,
“Smacking a toddler who wants to put their finger in a power socket won’t see anyone being prosecuted”
As pointed out in my previous post, the above action is not illegal. People, please get informed.
“The police will prosecute reported behaviour that isn’t acceptable.”
That may be so. But Police will also investigate EVERY case of alleged assault to see whether there is a case to answer. And some may say, “rightly so.” In addition, these cases will be recorded and a referral to CYPS will be made. (Not that that will be a problem - my experience of CYPS is that you can not pay them to get involved and support those parent having difficulty with their teens. Any way I digress.)
Police and CYPS do not have the resources to cope with the influx of cases that will come their way as a result of these poorly conceived changes.
However, I have a real problem with the notion of Police being in the position of deciding who goes to court and who doesn’t, when the wording of the law means an offence HAS been committed. This is not the same as deciding whether there is enough evidence to support gaining a conviction for an alleged offence. And it alleged until proven in court. Guilty people do go free, but it is because the prosecution were not able to establish the burden of proof.
In the case of a parent, there police have the “discretion” to ignore the proof because they feel the parent went well, even though the evidence is there to support criminal charges of child abuse.
May 3, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Children should be protected just like every other human being. The child abuse in this country is disgusting and the repeal of section59 was a step in the right direction. There’s no need to hit children to make them behave and all these “light” smackers need to get over themselves.
May 5, 2008 at 11:33 pm
“Autumn leaves and gentle rain say a fond goodbye to summer”
There’s a false premise there as gentle rain can happen any time of the year (just thought I’d point that out).
May 7, 2008 at 12:27 am
Sore Thumb,
That would be the next article. Still nice observation.
May 7, 2008 at 12:51 am
TruthSeeker,
Your POV is far too simplistic.
For the majority of the children being raised in this country the children are protected, and that protection and security is provided for them by the children’s parents. And history shows that a society that cares and supports the children through supporting their parents is the model that works best for raising the next generation.
What you see in NZ currently is the result of the last 20 years of the state interfering where it has no business and we are suffering the consequential fallout.
If you have had anything to do with even a small number of our young people, you will know that each is an individual and each responds differently to the assortment of teaching methods that are available. For example, one of my children responded well to timeout, another (consistently) did not. Another of my children responded well to a reasoned request to do (or not do) a certain action whereas the other two did not.
As a parent you work with your children and work out what works and what doesn’t. If you cannot work it out yourself (and there is nothing wrong with that), you talk with other parents or support people like your family doctor, Plunket nurse among others. This is how a functional society should work.
The point I am making is that when parenting, especially in the early years, one size does not fit all.
Something that really gets my dander up, is the parent(s) that have one or two children who are compliant by nature (the children that is). They (the parent(s)) generally have no clue what it is like raising kids at the other end of the spectrum. Instead of being thankful and counting their blessings, they feel it is their right or duty to offer advice which has no relevance to those who are struggling with a wilful child. This has not happened to me, but I have witnessed it. Best not to talk about areas you have no experience in.
The thing I really do not understand in all this, is that the point of the repeal of S.59 was to reduce child abuse. The target of the change, however, was not abusers, but rather the average parent doing what is sometimes a very stressful job and making the job just that much harder. And it is not because they cannot smack their children but because they control their children (the new law specifically make this illegal). Now that is much wider than just the smacking it was supposedly targeted at. Talk to your local youth aid officer or a CYPS counsellor about the problems that they are now dealing with on a daily basis that involve children in the 11-15 year age group who are out of control. These are not deprived kids we are talking about here, they are kids from normal “good family” backgrounds.
Anyway I digress.
I’m not sure that those criminals that participate in the heinous crime of child abuse (always was a crime - before and after the repeal of S.59) care at all what the laws of this country are. They do just as they please anyway. Just like they did before the repeal of S.59
Yes, child abuse is a problem. I do not deny that. But this has not done one jot toward reducing the terrible statistics. It is not a step in the right direction.
It simply was a feel good measure for the Green party, and Sue Bradford in particular, and the Labour party. It was lazy politicking. It is a sham.
And we are still waiting for what this society is going to do about child abuse in this country.
May 7, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I think that the travesty of child abuse goes hand in hand with things like neglect, alcohol and substance abuse, gambling, and youth crime. You can’t make people have values (such as empathy, honesty, gentleness, responsibility) by making laws. You can’t force people to make good choices about their own behavior either, but society and Government can support people better.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but I do believe that Sue Bradford’s bill hasn’t made life safer or happier for children. Kids need boundaries that are consistently and fairly upheld and they need their parents to put them first and to be responsible for their welfare.
Here in Greymouth we have issues about teenagers running around causing damage in places like Runanga, getting drunk and breaking things in Hokitika and now a teenager is helping police with their inquiries regarding the brutal assault on an elderly Dobson man. All these young people have parents who obviously are either unable to control their children (and need the support to help them do so) or who refuse to adequately parent them.
I’m a pretty left-wing person, but even I am sick of the Labour Government’s record at promoting healthy, stable families. Legal prostitution, making marriage nothing special, lowering the drinking age, and criminalising normal parental behavior aren’t that great for promoting the family as an institution.
This by the way is not going to push me into running out and voting Tory, I don’t think I could ever do that, but I seriously wonder about Labour’s ability to connect with struggling families and to offer them assistance.
Financially, Working For Families is helpful, but how about tax breaks for families who care for extended family members, or who have an adult at home running the house and caring for children? How about promoting parents as the moral authority who are responsible for their children’s behavior? How about targeting benefits at kid’s needs rather than allowing parents to drink, smoke or gamble it away? How about getting different agencies to work together with a family so as to prevent abuse, rather than mop up afterwards? How about funding Plunket and district/public nursing properly? How about tax breaks for people involved with volunteer work like Rotary, or food banks?
May 9, 2008 at 11:17 pm
The advantage of this repeal is that it brought the issue into the spotlight. It’s a hard matter to decide because there’s just so many different views to take into account. I personally was raised without smacking, and i think this has had a huge effect on the way i think of family violence. Even the smallest smack is a hurt for someone else if it was intended to hurt them. I can understand the whole kid and road argument… i just think all alternatives need to be looked at first before physically hurting them. But then again, who am i to impose my own morals on society? It’s sooooo tricky.
Leave a Reply