Key: smacking law will only change if proven ineffective

Email
Print

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:00a.m.

The Government wants regular police reports on smacking to continue

The Government wants regular police reports on smacking to continue

By Sia Aston

Prime Minister John Key says the anti-smacking law will change – but only if police and child welfare agencies can show it is not working.

“I believe the law is working as intended, but I want to give an assurance that a National-led government will continue to monitor the way the law is being implemented,” he said today.

The Government wants regular police reports on smacking to continue.

Child Youth and Family with police are to lead a high level review to ensure the law is working.

“Cabinet has agreed that if future police data indicates a worrying trend, the law will be changed to ensure good New Zealand parents are not criminalised for lightly smacking their children,” Key said.

Green MP Sue Bradford is behind the legislation, which first outlawed the use of force against children.

When the law was introduced, police were given discretionary powers not to prosecute inconsequential smacking.

She supports cabinet’s changes.

Since the law change two years ago, police have received 13 smacking complaints.

Of those, police exercised discretion and not one case resulted in a conviction.

In the same period, police received 2652 complaints of serious assault against children – suggesting police spent considerably more time dealing with serious child assaults than smacking cases.

Key says the law will only be changed if it is not working. He believes evidence shows that it is – because good parents are not being criminalised.

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

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

27 Aug 2009 06:35p.m.

The SmackMeister wrote:


Smacking is part of the fabric and wholesome culture of New Zealand. When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, it wasn't brought into law until attendees were properly smacked.

When "Mother England" called during World War II, it was the heroic "Smacking Battalion" that carried the day, smacking their way "freedom's bum".

And now the Almighty Government wants to take away this sacred right, this holy ritual of beating kids like a side of beef.

But not anymore! This weekend we will hold a "Million Smack Smac-In" in front of the Beehive, where we will public beat the crap out of kids in a show of smacking defiance...that will be The Smack Heard 'Round The World.

In jest,
Manuel from Los Angeles
(married to a Kiwi)

26 Aug 2009 04:46p.m.

Solomon wrote:

Bollocks Thomas and you must know it or be sucked in by the lousy low quality trash science the anti discipline crew peddle.

I have seen the research and you are just Spinning!.

Want to talk about the false stats out of Sweeden too.

How the Body count of kids killed by parents that just defys the Govt lieing numbers...Oh truth how inconvenient..(to be cliched)

25 Aug 2009 06:56p.m.

Thomas wrote:

Solomon: who are you accusing of not doing homework?

All the research has in fact TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT LEVEL OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT the only positive effect of smacking is immediate compliance (which isn't that surprising really)

I hardly think that the 'minority' of people who support the repeal of section 59 are reactionary and emotional if anything the arguments that have been presented against the repeal have been the emotiveones

25 Aug 2009 06:54p.m.

ANNA wrote:

JOHN KEYIS RIGHT SMAKIG IS GOOD

25 Aug 2009 05:47p.m.

Solomon wrote:

Wassup there Alan
Thanks for your thesis on society and sharing your religious trauma with us.
If you do your homework you will find that the only solid research on this as opposed to the 1000x repeated crap that REFUSES FLATLY to differentiate between Beatings Drunken rages etc from smacking for correction shows a very positive outcome for smacking.
But What do we want with facts we we can be reactionary and emotional?
Did your folks send you to confession too much as a Kid?
Last time I knew it 88% of New Zealand were not Christians.

What exactly is your Beef? Are you one of those that confuses force from an authority with random acts of violence?

Please keep on topic. Your forced sunday school where you had to learn to not steal lie and commit adultery may have been tough and corrupting but it really is off the topic.
Oh, How's Brendan these days?

24 Aug 2009 10:05p.m.

Alan Liefting wrote:

Robert, the politicians have not all made up there mind about the referendum. The referendum was flawed and referenda are not binding. Larry Baldock is following a conservative Christian ideology and wants to perpetuate our poor record of child violence. And what do you mean about society unravelling. I would say that we are heading in the right direction by throwing off the shackles of religion. Also, what do you mean that the academics are pulling the strings? That is rubbish. The big influences on society are advertising, peer pressure and industry lobby groups.

24 Aug 2009 09:06p.m.

Robert wrote:

So basically, the politicians of New Zealand have already made up their minds and aren't going to take the results of the referendum seriously.

That police are given "discretionary powers not to prosecute inconsequential smacking" fails to change the bottom line: parents who smack have committed a criminal offence. As it stands presently, they may escape any consequences because the government has condescended to ignore their behaviour. The government may choose to turn a blind eye, but as far as the law is concerned parents who smack are guilty.

So it remains that if you choose to smack your children, you have to do so in secret. Families are left worrying, “Is smacking OK or isn't it?” Smacking your children is not a viable choice if you want to remain a functioning member of society. This legal grey area we are creating for it undermines parental confidence and authority at a time when it is needed more than ever.

And why is it that only the police and social services are going to be consulted in this matter? Why is nobody asking families with young children how their lives have been changed? The Police and social services can't give data on how devastating this law and the confusion that surrounds it has been for the many good families who don't see social services. The Plunket nurses may be keeping meticulous records about what they think is going on in homes, but how many parents are telling the truth when they are being made to feel so guilty and afraid? The office of parenting has become so degraded and devalued that we are funding adverts in our shopping trolleys to make ourselves feel better about it.

As the fabric of our society unravels, our politicians and academics are pulling at the threads. They are determined to have their way. So much for democracy.

24 Aug 2009 08:55p.m.

Nicholas wrote:

Sandy, the PM did not spend on the referendum - it was initiated by Larry Baldock. It is embaressingly pointless to worry about this with just 13 failed complaints vs. 2652 serious assault complaints. The law is working as written. Did these people do any real research?

24 Aug 2009 07:15p.m.

Sandy wrote:

Why didi our Prime MMinister spend 9 million dollars on a referendum then if he intended to leave things pretty much as is He did not NEED to waste the publics time and money to tell us the law is working OR to ask the police and child welfare agencies if they thought the law was working He is all but saying that IF the parents and caregivers of NZ want a law change there would need to be a worrying trend of increased smacking among that group again How sad is that!

24 Aug 2009 07:12p.m.

John wrote:

Good to see that Key doesn't support child abuse like 88% of New Zealands population who are outraged at the fact they feel like criminals when taking out their own fustrations on a child.