3News » Home
Full Story

Boscawen's bill faces heavy defeat

10 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA
John Boscawen

John Boscawen

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:00a.m.
An MP who wants to change the law that bans smacking is facing a crushing defeat in Parliament.

ACT's John Boscawen says he drafted his member's bill to meet the wishes of more than 87 percent of voters who took part in the referendum on the law.

His amendment would make it legal for parents to lightly smack their children but Prime Minister John Key has set himself against it and National will oppose it when it comes up for a first reading vote.

Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party will almost certainly oppose it as well and Mr Boscawen will find it difficult to gather more support than ACT's five votes.

"I think it's very disappointing because 87 percent of New Zealanders said they don't believe a smack for the purpose of correction should be illegal," Mr Boscawen told NZPA last night.

"The prime minister and the National Party make a grave mistake when they ignore those 87 percent of people."

The referendum asked the question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

More than 1.6 million people voted and 87.4 percent said "no".

Mr Key reacted to the result on Monday, saying he would strengthen assurances that there would be no prosecutions for a light smack.

He said yesterday the law was working the way Parliament intended it to.

"If the law doesn't work I will change it," he said.

"I think all the statistics we see now tell us the law in its current form is working. We've had 33 complaints, we've had one withdrawn prosecution."

Mr Key said the message from the referendum was that parents were uneasy about the law.

"It didn't ask the question about whether the law should be changed. I think that's a more difficult issue."

Labour leader Phil Goff said he thought most of his MPs would oppose Mr Boscawen's bill.

"They feel that the current law is working and that the guarantees are there that good parents won't face sanctions from lightly smacking their children," he said.

The Greens are sure to oppose it because it was one of their MPs, Sue Bradford, who drafted the bill that banned smacking.

The Maori Party strongly supported the ban when it was passed by Parliament.

The bill isn't likely to be on Parliament's agenda for at least two weeks.

NZPA
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [10]

Tim
13 Sep 2009 7:20p.m.

I'd suggest that most of those who have posted above take the time to go and read section 59 of the crimes act. Its clear to me that the bulk of you have no actual understanding of the law. Any law which gives equal rights to a large proportion of the population can only be good. after all if you annoyed your neighbour and he 'smacked' you wouldn't you expect the law to protect your rights? The change to section 59 do not remove the rights of parents to discipline a child in their care. It does how ever clarify just what is acceptable. In other words a riding crop, a length of hose etc is not reasonable.

Judy
31 Aug 2009 9:03p.m.

The point of the issue NOW is, if we allow PM KEY get away with ignoring the public voice you can say goodbye to the Democracy we pretend we have.
When the public loses its voice it wont get it back.
WE are being seriously tested...you can bet your life on this.
There is more to this than the criminalizing & harrassing parents over smacking. Govt already has more laws than it needs for cruel acts even if they pretend they havent.
Think people think.
Two institutions are responsible for brainwashing the public to smack & these are Govt & Churches. You cant force people to change overnight but you can encourage.
Govt puts more effort into taking from & putting pressure on the masses than they do to help.

Chargone
28 Aug 2009 1:27a.m.

i hate act. hate them with a hatey, hatey hate. but with all the stupidity being put forth by other parties, and with them apparently being the only ones willing to object, i'm left in an interesting position. do i vote for the party that least represents my over all views but is actually trying to uphold the principles of the system, or do i vote for the party that best represents me but doesn't have a hope in hell of getting in, or do i vote for National or Labour, hoping not to get the Other one in, in the face of mounting evidence that there's no damn difference between the two on any meaningful level? now, if people would get over the stupid idea that either national or labour is any good, and the thought that the only way to stop them getting in is to vote for the other, maybe we could get some parties in there who actually represent the people, no? ... that said, I'm not keen on the Maori party either [my comments on other articles probably prove why] but say whatever else you will about them... they do seem to do what people voted for them for, even if said things are completely moronic.

Russ F
27 Aug 2009 10:29p.m.

This whole matter is out of hand and a disgraceful example of non-democratic political behaviour! I challenge all party leaders to withdraw their whips and to voluntarily stand down all list MP's from voting on this bill and therefore let only the constituent MP's vote on conscience or in line with their electorate wishes. Just how democratic are you John Keys, Phil Goff and other leaders. Should they not accept this challenge, I call on the 1.4 million who voted No in the referendum, to transfer their constituent votes at the next election to Independent candidates and their list votes to the Kiwi Party who at least we know believe in a NZ democracy as Larry Baldock promoted the original petition.

mumof5
27 Aug 2009 7:23p.m.

I really hope our MPs vote to change the law. YES this issue should be pursued further! I understand the law as it stands and I don't abuse my kids. But I worry when I smack my young children ... will the neighbours report me?... will social services rock up to my door and take away my children? Will I have to go through a huge amount of fuss and court cases even if the end result is that I am not prosecuted??

Deane Duxfield
27 Aug 2009 5:01p.m.

Inversely Proportional Representation. IPR

85% of parliament Vote against 85% of the people.

Its the New Zealand Way!
Its an institution now both Major Parties have adopted the principle of IPR It is now a virtue!...
"Strong Leadership" stands against the will of the people.

Maybe we need to use reverse politics.

How about if mainstream people start a referendum for the abolishment of parental authority! Maybe that would inspire Key to call parents the authority of kids and untouchable in that role?

Call it what you want but this is No democracy.

And let no imbicile Anti Disciplinarian claim the people that didn't vote therfore support their destructive views.

James
27 Aug 2009 2:37p.m.

Tau got it wrong , as usual , Keys is the buffoon and jerkoff.
He is suffering from the same sickness that permeated thru Clark and her government , arrogance and the belief that they know better , what is best for all.

j
27 Aug 2009 12:45p.m.

just ACT trying to garner more than their pathetic 3% support. Move along JB, noone cares. You and your right wing scaremongering supporters who confused the public with irresponsible claims that good parents were being punished under the current law.

The 87% support ratio (of only 50% of eleigble voters) highlights the fact the only people who gave a rats ass and voted, were those who either wanted legal portection to physically abuse their kids OR didn't understand the law as it stands.

Craig Young
27 Aug 2009 11:42a.m.

No. Let's get on with more important things, like
abolishing the provocation defence.

Craig

John Lower Hutt
27 Aug 2009 10:59a.m.

I'm certainly not a supporter of ACT, but I agree with Boscawen on this one. Is the issue really worth pursuing any further though?

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio