Anti-smacking referendum making politicians uncomfortable

Print

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:00a.m.

This citizen initiated referendum comes after 310,000 people signed a petition

This citizen initiated referendum comes after 310,000 people signed a petition

It has not even landed in letterboxes yet, but already the referendum on the so-called anti-smacking legislation is causing consternation.

The question on the postal ballot has come under criticism from politicians from both sides of the political divide, with most agreeing it is unlikely to result in a law change.

The referendum question asks, ‘should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’

It is a question that is causing as much controversy as the law it is supposed to be about.

“The question is a bad question to which I feel uncomfortable voting either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’,” says Labour leader Phil Goff.

This citizen-initiated referendum comes after 310,000 people signed a petition.

But now it is in the post, there are serious concerns being raised about the question.

“I struggle with this question because it is asking us to comment on whether smacking is part of good parental correction,” says Murray Campbell of Baseline Consultancy.

“Then it asks us, ‘should it be a criminal offence?’”

It presumes that the two go together when in reality - they need not.

At a cost of nearly $9 million, it is an expensive exercise, and one which has been badly executed - according to the architect of the law.

“The whole problem with this referendum of course was that the question was allowed by the clerk,” says Green MP Sue Bradford.

“It’s a real pity that happened.”

The question was formulated by a representative of the anti-smacking lobby Larry Baldock, and was signed off by the Clerk of the House - who is effectively Parliament’s head legal advisor.

While the result of the referendum is not binding - it is forcing politicians to rethink the way that referenda are run.

“I do think the question is a bit ambiguous and can be read a number of ways,” says Prime Minister John Key.

“That is of course, one of the challenges with referendums.”

Mr Key went on to say that it “might make a bit of sense” to have stricter rules – given the cost of a referendum.

ACT's Rodney Hide is the only MP 3 News spoke to today who said the question was clear.

“I think I’ll be voting for parents to have the right to give their children a light smack,” he says.

So how do you know whether to vote yes or no?

Vote ‘yes’ if you want the law to remain unchanged - so that using force or violence to discipline children is illegal.

Vote ‘no’ if you want the law to revert back, giving parents the defence of using reasonable force on their children.

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

31 Jul 2009 12:39p.m.

Sally wrote:

This is about the protection of children rather than the rights of adults.Vote Yes.

18 Jun 2009 12:00a.m.

Peter wrote:

So if a smack is not illegal Chris what stops the Police prosecuting any parent for smacking their child in public. A smack, regardless of how hard, is assault under the law. The fact the police have been given discretion to not prosecute if they feel it is not in the publics interest does not make it legal any more than driving 105kph in a 100kph zone is legal.

17 Jun 2009 01:35p.m.

Leanne wrote:

Vote ‘yes’ if you want the law to remain unchanged - so that using force or violence to discipline children is illegal.

Vote ‘no’ if you want the law to revert back, giving parents the defence of using reasonable force on their children.

I don;t agree with the wording of the above statements made in the above story.

As far as I know it does not want it to revert back to using the cop out of reasonable force. As far as I can see it only is using the word "Smack"
presumably with an open hand, not a wooden spoon, electric cord etc.
The new law that is in there now certainly has not stopped children dying from abuse.
They need to address that, not parents who smack.
Thanks.
Leanne.

17 Jun 2009 01:02p.m.

cyril wrote:

Of course Goff and Key are nervious and probably wont answer the question. Who ever heard of a politician answering a yes or no question.
If there is the numbers to force a referendum then it should be held. The politicians waste more on less every day.

17 Jun 2009 08:58a.m.

Jim wrote:

"This citizen-initiated referendum comes after 310,000 people signed a petition."
Go the citizens!!!. Who cares if it expensive, at least the tax payers are spending their own money for a change instead of sleazy Politicians and Bureaucrats spending it on their own selfish schemes or social engineering!!!

17 Jun 2009 02:12a.m.

Christopher wrote:

"so that using force or violence to discipline children is illegal"

Nobody seems to understand that this is not the case. The bill REPEALED the defence of resonable force. It did not criminalise or illegalise smacking. If a child is beaten with an electrical cord/jandal/horsewhip and it goes to trial, the defendant can't obfuscate things by claiming 'reasonable force'. All the bill ever did was make it easier to prosecute child abusers.

The media frenzy whipped on and on by a combination of misinterpretation and deliberacy, along with Sue Bradfords uncontrollable mouth making it worse has made what should have been an under the radar fixit into an expensive farce.