Smacking poll 'won't alter law'
Key dismisses effect of $9m referendum
By COLIN ESPINER
The Government is unlikely to change the child-discipline law regardless of the result of a $9 million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says.
The Chief Electoral Office yesterday began the citizens-initiated referendum on Green Party MP Sue Bradford's child-discipline law, which removed the defence of "reasonable force" for parents or guardians who hit their children. The referendum was forced last year when organisers collected more than 300,000 signatures on the question, "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
The referendum will be held by postal ballot from July 31 to August 21. Chief electoral officer Robert Peden said the campaign and voting process would cost $8.9m.
Both sides of the child-discipline debate are lining up for a rehash of arguments expressed when the law was passed two years ago.
Child advocates have begun the call for a "yes" vote on the referendum, saying the new law is working as intended and parents are not being criminalised for smacking their children.
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, who helped organise the petition, said the law was confusing and the confusion was "causing huge harm".
The debate may turn out to be an expensive waste of effort for both sides, with Mr Key saying yesterday that he had no intention of changing the law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
"I think it's important that governments listen to the public, but the test I've had is that if I don't think the law is working I will change it," he said. "To date I have not seen any evidence that it is not working."
The question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call for the law to be changed or repealed. The issue was of significant public concern two years ago but had died away, he said.
The Families Commission has come out in support of the "yes" vote, although new commissioner Christine Rankin is opposed to the law. Mr Key said he did not expect Ms Rankin to campaign either way on the referendum because the commission took a collective view.
The commission said new evidence on family discipline practices to be presented in Wellington today showed that the incidence of child smacking was declining. Although four in 10 parents said they occasionally smacked their children, fewer than one in 10 felt it was effective.
"The law is working well, parents are not being criminalised for trivial offences and there is growing understanding and use of positive parenting strategies," chief commissioner Jan Pryor said.
Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge said voting "yes" in the referendum was the "best way to ensure the legal protection of children".
Plunket chief executive Jenny Price said there were safe and effective measures for disciplining children that did not involve physical violence.
Parenting advocacy group Parents Centres called the referendum a "tedious process" when the law was working as it should.
Mr McCoskrie said "appropriate" smacking for the purpose of correcting, training and teaching should not be a crime. "The law is fundamentally flawed because it fails to deal with the problem it was supposed to child abuse and implicates law-abiding parents in the process."
- The Press
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
The question is ridiculous, it is good that it will not influence things either way. This does seem like a waste of money but it is a good thing that we have the power to force referendums even if the question picked is so foolish as to make the referendum irrelevant.
The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act was long overdue. It removed that reasonable force mechanism that allowed some parents to beat their children with such implements as plastic hoses and horse whips. Its not about social engineering (who made that moronic comment - oh it was #4), its about protecting youngsters from violence inflicted by family members. There must be some sort of correlation between those who want Section 59 of the Crimes Act reintroduced and violence towards children.
One good thing about this legislation and the total debate is that it has encouraged serious thinking about what is good parenting and about corporal punishment, in particular.
Protagonists to whom I have spoken, Sarah(#4), have wanted to avoid extending the discussion to reintroducing corporal punishment at schools like the avoiding the plaque - most advanced industrial countries abolished it decades and decades ago. They know in their heart of hearts that that was progress.
And yet logically, one could argue that there is just as much reason for good school teachers to use corporal punishment as there is for good parents to use it.
Did you see that TVNZ clip with the hand giving the child a slap every now and then, Sarah(#4)?
It is wrong, dear. It is showing that the parent has lost patience and is not persevering - and yet it is just what was so very common.
Religious fundamentalists have admitted to me that the law has encouraged a rethink. I have met some who are now not in favour of smacking, but who want the law changed for "counselling purposes". In other words, when a church member confides in them that they are guilty about smacking their children, the councillor is able to make them feel better due to what is written in the Bible and that they have not broken the law.
Quoting from the article,
"Although four in 10 parents said they occasionally smacked their children, fewer than one in 10 felt it was effective",
reiterates that the law change is doing some good and that things are starting to move in the right direction.
The orthdox churches should be outspoken to encourage a "Yes" vote (if this ridiculous referendum has to go ahead).
The question is badly worded, and too many people will have trouble understanding what it means. Maybe if the word good was removed, it would make a bit more sense. Alternatively, a question asking "Should parents be allowed to smack their children when they're naughty?" would have been easier to understand.
But the law isn't working as intended! Yes, a few cases have happened when parents have been too harsh, but mostly it's just getting people for, well, parenting! And kids know it too, they know parents can't do a damn thing to them, just like kids at school these days. Sue Bradford screwed up. People hate her idea, hate her law, and no innocent parents are getting punished for it. This is punishing discipline, whereas all those poor kids in the past few years who have died, it hasn't helped them at all, and nor will it help them in the future.
I would hope National are not going to ignore the public's wishes like Labour. It would cost a lot of money, and, possibly the next election. This socially engineered amendment of Bradford must be repealed. Hopefully there has not been some agreement to keep the Greens on side.
That's a lot of smackers for not smacking. I like Key's test, so why are we continuing??
What's the point then?
Mother in plea for return of photos
Neighbour cuts sewer pipe leaving family in the lurch
Girl's death a homicide investigation
Shot man used hand to ward off bullet
Kapiti road plan greeted with dismay
Clark returns to scene of guide's death
Never-again vow after rural schools botch-up
Truckie fears being fried in pole snap
Avatar - A breathtaking glimpse into the future
Dead girl seemed 'always happy'
First Avatar trailer hits the net
Buy your furniture or we'll sell it Crown tells ministers
Griffin's moves biscuits to Fiji
Wellington mayor's husband threatens mall libel suit
Kiwi Kevin Percy claims Harry Potter castle
High hopes for NZ's first rocket to be away laughing
Sperm decline spurs research into face cream
Wave of support gives a lift to tsunami victims
Deaths of pregnant women 'preventable'
Doctors warn of risks in more health squeezing
Heavenly movie tests Jackson to the limit
Wellington mayor's husband threatens mall libel suit
School building gutted by fire
Kiwi Kevin Percy claims Harry Potter castle
Griffin's moves biscuits to Fiji
High hopes for NZ's first rocket to be away laughing
Griffin's moves biscuits to Fiji
Ask Greer Friday: Friends - or something more?
Mall campaign pays for 'protesters'
Buy your furniture or we'll sell it Crown tells ministers
Kiwi Kevin Percy claims Harry Potter castle
I for one do not find the question that difficult to understand. The answer to the question is clearly no. I have raised 2 children to late teenage years and needed to smack only once. Nowdays that would make me a criminal.
Are our politicians making things more difficult that they have to be?
The answer is clearly yes. Phil-in Goff is proving lately to be an embarrassment. Sue Bradford has always been that way.
John Key should vote NO. Show some leadership man