Referendum: safeguards to give parents comfort

35 Comments
24 August 2009
Referendum: safeguards to give parents comfort

Prime Minister John Key today announced Cabinet decisions to introduce safeguards to give parents comfort they will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children.

The safeguards follow the Citizens Initiated Referendum on smacking.

“The referendum result reinforces the message that New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for a light smack. To give parents comfort that this will not happen, Cabinet has agreed on a number of measures.” These are:

The Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive lead a review of Police and Child, Youth & Family policies and procedures, including the referral process between the two agencies, to identify any changes that are necessary or desirable to ensure good parents are treated as Parliament intended. The Commissioner of Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive will seek an independent person to assist in the conduct of the review and will report back by 1 December 2009.
Bring forward the delivery of the report from the Ministry of Social Development chief executive on data and trends and the effect of the law change from the end of the year to late September/early October. The Minister of Social Development will table the report in the House.
Invite Police to continue to report on a six-monthly or annual basis for the next three years on the operation of the law, and invite Police to include data on cases where parents or caregivers say the force used on the child was reasonable in the circumstances.

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

“As I have said repeatedly I believe the law is working as intended, but I want to give parents an assurance that a National-led Government will continue to monitor the way the law is being implemented.”

Posted by admin in News release Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Cheyne 2009-08-24 17:35 - (Reply)

Sadly i don't think today has been a good one for the government. I am dissappointed. They have not listened. (This includes ruling out Maori seats in ASC before the final report was in)

#2 - Joe D 2009-08-24 17:35 - (Reply)

Disappointing copout, really. Why not just implement the Chester Borrows Amendment? I'm not sure National understands the level of disquiet over this issue. The country has loudly and clearly asked for a law change along the lines of the Borrows Amendment. Seriously, guys, ignore that at your peril. (One of the silent majority, extremely disappointed at JK's stand on this)

#3 - Anonymous 2009-08-24 18:10 - (Reply)

Mate, whether or not I get arrested, I am already a criminal under law, simply for raising my kids well. This is wholly unacceptable; and no amount of reviews and reports will change it. It's a bad law, and it needs to be fixed.

#4 - dave 2009-08-24 18:41 - (Reply)

totally disgraceful. First key says he wouldn't vote because it is up to the goverment to listen, then when almost 90% say that a smack should NOT be a criminal offence there are offers of 'policy change'. This is no comfort. John Key - show you have some courage, show you do listen, change the law. A smack is *NOT* an assault.

#5 - JohnM 2009-08-24 19:23 - (Reply)

Not listening to the constituents is a sure way to be voted out. Please respect the democracy, and do the right thing; repeal the law.

#6 - david 2009-08-24 20:08 - (Reply)

JK, you wrote, in April 2007: "I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches." The 1.4 million people who voted "NO" don't want reports and tweaks. We want Sue Bradford's law replaced with something like Borrows' amendment. Something that respects parents and does not put the State as "uber-parent".

#7 - Tim 2009-08-24 21:05 - (Reply)

Very pleased to see that National is not jumping to change the law after a pretty shoddily run(non-binding) referendum. I think this it the right decision - the law is working as intended. It's easier to prosecute abusers and good parents are not being prosecuted.

#7.1 - Amanda 2009-08-26 18:39 - (Reply)

I agree with Tim and good on National for sticking to their commitment to not changing the law. It is sending a signal that hitting kids is not acceptable. And it is working - no longer can parents use a defence of "reasonable force" if they have laid into their children with belts, hoses, horsewhips - or even an open hand. They know (and their children know) that it is not OK to do that. I am sorry but there are plenty of other - more effective - ways to enforce boundaries or punish bad behaviour beyond smacking; parents need to be open to trying out different ideas.

#7.2 - Gillian 2009-08-28 10:53 - (Reply)

I think you are both mistaken this law is not working as intended because children are still being abused! But innocent decent loving parents are being looked at like criminals for disciplining their children. It is fine for you to choose not to smack your children that is your choice. Personally my view is that 'time out' and the 'naughty step' if used incorrectly can also damage a childs mental state, just because it doesnt leave bruises doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact so tell me what is next - no discipline at all because children will just know by some miracle what is right and what is wrong! Get Real! All forms of discipline if abused will damage a child, but good parenting doesn't. That includes a smack if necessary! Nobody enjoys disciplining their children in anyway, but it is our responsibility to do it and to do it as best we can. A good parent will know what form of discipline works for the children and to be quite honest sometimes the only thing that works is a smack. Young children are not able to understand reasoning yet!

#8 - Geoff 2009-08-25 09:30 - (Reply)

Bye bye John/National. Arrogance and distain for the will of the people was something we came to expect from Labour but we expected you to be different. But if you're not then please be assured that I will vote for Labour next election [after 30 years of voting for National]. You've seriously misjudged this one John.

#9 - Daniel 2009-08-25 13:26 - (Reply)

State sponsored persecution of another's beliefs and way of life is criminalisation. It is not only about prosecution (although people have already been prosecuted since the law change you claim for smacking their children). But criminalisation is about making an action illegal. On a wider basis, criminalisation also about PERSECUTION - state sponsored persecution. * It is about the state sponsored persecution that teaches our kids as a part of school curriculum that their parents are criminals if they smack. * It is about the institutional hate speech of public servants who equate loving parents who smack their kids with the violent abuse that curses our nation. * It is about the trauma of scores of families where kids have been removed by the agents of the state because they smacked (not abused) their kids. * It is about the persecution of media and public judgement of parents who smack their children in public. * It is about the harassment of police questioning - police who are required to investigate complaints even if they don't prosecute. * It is about the 12% that you clearly belong to, who believe they have the right to condemn how the other 88% choose to bring up their families.

#10 - Renee 2009-08-25 17:29 - (Reply)

I voted John key in. I thought he would listen to NZ Public, but today he has shown he doesn't care. When i was a child my parents smacked me when i needed it. My father would always say "this is hurting me more than it is hurting you" He didn't want to smack me, but because he loved me so much he disciplined me when i needed it. Good parents need tools to effectively raise children. Smacking is not the only disciplinary tool that should be used in parenting, but it is an important one. Very disappointed in the national government. I wont be voting for them again unless they change this law!

#11 - Richard Cutforth 2009-08-26 17:35 - (Reply)

As a supporter of you and the National Party at the last election I am deeply disappointed that you and your party, especially our very weak and liberal Prime Minister, is ignoring the referendum. I see that you are no different than the other crowd you took the place of. What a sad situation. I will be strongly encouraging people not to vote for you. I pastor a church and this is the view of nearly all people I speak to. I think you should at least support the Acts private members bill which will go through parliament soon. Sadly, your party is a joke and to think that I had much faith in you, how naive.

#11.1 - jonathan rumens 2009-08-28 20:33 - (Reply)

Very good point. I am fully supporting Boscarwin's PMB. Pray for God's intervention

#12 - Ian 2009-08-26 22:48 - (Reply)

Thank you for understanding the true nature of the legislation (unlike many of those who quite simply so not understand the law). Section 59 gave parents the right, under law, to administer a level of criminal force to a child and use the defense of 'discipline' to get of; the repeal of section 59 restricted the use of this defense. It is crass that any country should have laws that protect adults, property and animals from the results of deliberate force, but not children. I applaud your decision to resist change.

#12.1 - Andrew 2009-08-29 17:03 - (Reply)

Heaven forbid that the wishes of the people as expressed in a petition and a referendum be respected. You don't seem to appreciate (as Sue Bradford also didn't understand) that there is a world of difference between a smack and beating your child senseless, and that the monsters who beat their children could have been prosecuted more readily with a clarification as to what constituted reasonable force without forcing the PC form of parenting on all kiwis. The lack of legal reform on this issue by the national party is truly sad

#12.2 - martin 2009-08-29 19:50 - (Reply)

Ian - Assault is assault, in the context of children or adults and we already have a perfectly good law in those cases. The anti - smacking law will not change the level of child abuse in NZ. The people who abuse children do not consider the law. Any law which deals with an emotive subject must be very carefully crafted, and must be black and white. I would be approve of any such law, however this law as it stands does not get my approval. Either ban smacking outright or describe fully what constitutes acceptable physical discipline. This anti - smacking bill simply clouds the issue and therefore should be repealed.

#13 - Bob Hall 2009-08-27 14:21 - (Reply)

Apparently the law is "working as intended" by criminalizing parents who smack their children. They are criminalized even though they may not be prosecuted. Apparently the consciences of the entire Party caucus have been 'whipped' into opposing the consciences of at least 80% of National Party voters. Why on earth should anyone vote again for a party with consciences this malleable?

#14 - TimM said:
2009-08-27 14:46 - (Reply)

Good parents are not crims The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act will criminalise every parent who occasionally corrects their child by smacking them lightly. Supporters of the bill say this doesn't matter because no one will be prosecuted for correcting children with a light smack. But if they are right, and if no one is going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then it shouldn't be illegal. This is bad law. The backers of this bill are saying "trust the police and the courts not to enforce it". We need to do better than that. Almost every MP from every party claims that they want the same things. We want to stop bad parents using the Section 59 defence of reasonable force to get away with violently beating their children. We want to lower the threshold on what is acceptable physical discipline of children. And we don't want to criminalise good parents who occasionally give their children a light smack. So let's step back, acknowledge our common ground, and pass a law on smacking that is clear and precise and which the police and the courts will enforce. That's what good law-making should be all about. Quote from John Key, April 20, 2007

#15 - Ray Watson 2009-08-27 17:49 - (Reply)

I cannot believe, you, John, as a recently elected Prime Minister BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE has so quickly and easily lost the plot. Are you just going to ignore one and a half million people? Ignore? Is that what it means to represent the people? Ignore them? Hello? Anybody home?

#16 - Jay 2009-08-28 00:36 - (Reply)

John you are seriously misjudging the anti-smacking law feeling and your dismissal of the overwhelming support for a law change is going to hurt National more than you have any idea, it would appear. At worst you are being arrogant, at best your advisors are failing you. The current law may not be leading to prosecutions but that is not the major impact on average Kiwi parents. The worst of the damage is from the investigation by Police and worse, CYPFs. You have obviously not read the numerous accounts about the humiliation and damage being done by these agencies as they investigate innocent parents, in front of neighbours, family members and work colleagues...it is horrific. This is the big issue with the current situation but you seem oblivious to the problem. Forget what the officials tell you about the number of prosecutions being a fair assessment of how the system is working. How can you say the current law is working...child abuse cases and child deaths are up not down. The law is unclear and makes criminals out of the last people in society that require valuable resources of Police and CYPFs, requiring investigation which results in humiliation, regardless of if the Police eventually decide to prosecute or not. You proved with the Bread fortification issue that if you try you CAN change things that your advisors say are too hard. Isn't the role of the Govt. to make the hard decisions like defining "reasonable" when going back to the old Section 59 defence?

#16.1 - Brian 2009-08-28 20:23 - (Reply)

Jay, well said, I think you summed it up very well. When the overwhelming majority of the public didn't want the law in the first place, who does John Key think he is apeasing by saying there will be safegaurds put in place to make sure parents are not criminalised. The public have now voted again in the referendum, we didn't vote for safegaurds to be put in place (don't try and fool us with that crap) we actually voted a big NO and want the law to be changed. What part of the word NO doesn't he understand. It's a big insult to all of the 1.4 million people that voted but it's a much bigger insult to the voters that voted for National expecting a genuine return to democracy after 9 years of the 'nanny Helen labour Government' Perhaps we should support the ACT party at least they keep their word and are prepared to stand by it. John Key you need to listen otherwise as the saying goes you 'will be gone by lunchtime' or at the latest at the next election. and by the way I have voted National for 39 years, I won't do it next time unless this gets fixed and the law gets changed. THAT IS WHAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT. Brian

#16.2 - Kevin Dustow 2009-08-29 08:38 - (Reply)

John we are disappointed in you..we thought you would have the guts to do what the people want instead of listening to misguided officials and become political...you were elected because we wanted someone who would listen to us...you are starting to become just as arrogant as Helen Clark did and this is ashame because you seem a nice guy...stop making feeble excuses about the referendum and do what we want..this is what you were voted to do...we are becoming disappointed in you...

#16.3 - Maurie 2009-08-29 14:27 - (Reply)

Most of the replies are descriptive if the concern/frustration/and other emotions to sum up 'what exactly do we have to do to be heard'? if 80 to 90% of citizens on more than one occassion have spoken. The previous regime ran roughshod over the majority with carefully scripted words often short on real evidence. There is a serious princple at stake here plus a real missunderstanding of how the law works. The 'intent' of the law and the 'letter of it' is not evidence, ask the traffic police, and the many people who have experienced the grief of it in many family situations. Maurie

#17 - Brian 2009-08-28 13:16 - (Reply)

John is in danger of losing touch with the demographic process. It was a referendum. We were having a referendum because a significant number of NZ'ers wanted it. Listen; take note; don't fly in the face of our demographic rights.

#18 - Harvey Lockie 2009-08-28 20:16 - (Reply)

"GIVING PARENTS COMFORT ON CHILD DISCIPLINE" I don't want 'comfort', I want the law repealed, as do 89% of those who voted. Not a good look. Cheers, Harvey Lockie

#19 - David Fleming 2009-08-28 20:30 - (Reply)

John, as Prime Minister I guess you can make some mistakes. But this is a big one. Please don't overlook the will of the people. The problem is that we do not want the government to enter our houses and that is exactly what this anti-smacking law does. Have courage John. Repeal it.

#20 - Simon Christopher Roughan 2009-08-28 20:35 - (Reply)

John, please don't do an arrogant Helen and ignore the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders about the anti-smacking vote. Change the law for God's sake. Don't ignore the sentiments of good law abiding New Zealanders.

#21 - Fred Miller 2009-08-28 21:55 - (Reply)

John, Helen Clark lost her job because she became more and more arrogant and stopped listening to the voters. I am sure that she still thinks that she knows better than the people who voted for her. I understand that it might take some courage to admit you've been wrong to make the deal with labour regarding the anti smacking bill - but I think people would respect you more for admitting your previous mistake and to change the law instead of ignoring a referendum which couldn't have been clearer and defending a wrong law with meaningless weasel words. This law turns good parents into criminals. This is wrong, even if you tell the police not to prosecute the people who are violating this law. Please change the law!

#22 - David J 2009-08-28 22:20 - (Reply)

Shame, Shame, Shame on you John and the National party. I have voted National for 20 years believing that right wing philosophies allowed people control of their own lives. Sadly John, you have shown yourself to be yet another two faced left wing politician who feels the people are their to serve your cause rather than you there to serve the people. You have forgotten that you work for us, and unless you change your tune I will not be employing you next election. I will not be one to enable socialist thinking to oppress and control the people for the selfish political ideals of a few brokers. The one big chance you had John to show the people that you were a man of your word and you blew it completely. Thought you were going to be different, but no, just another typical self serving politician.

#23 - Stephanie said:
2009-08-28 22:26 - (Reply)

Mr Key, I voted for you because I thought you would be trustworthy and work for the people. It looks like I was totally wrong. You have your own private and strange agenda and it looks like you have no intention of listening to the people who voted for you. The people spoke loud and clear in the referendum. We told you we want you to CHANGE THE LAW WHICH IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT WORKING. Please listen to us, represent us. This country is a democracy.

#24 - Jan Daffern 2009-08-28 23:07 - (Reply)

John you are missing two vital fundamental points. Firstly, the consequences of the current law which you are defending. Last year there were 33 complaints of 'smacking' - yet only 1 prosecution, which was ultimately dropped. So John, you honestly think that it is 'inconsequential' that 33 good families go through the trauma and intrusion of a Police and/or CYF investigation and consequent interview. Although I have no experience of a visit to my home by the Police or CYF, what I can imagine is that it would not be like 'Interflora' or 'Avon' calling. When these 33 good families were visited, I pray that the children were not present - and this is supposed to be 'inconsequential' ?. So yes, in this instance, the law as it stands is consequential because it has the potential to permanently damage the children and the family unit it sets out to protect. Secondly, the total lack of democracy behind this whole issue. I am saddened and concerned that you, John Key, are now sacrificing democracy to suit your own personal view.

#25 - Geordie 2009-08-29 09:33 - (Reply)

The only comfort parents will have is if the law is reversed. The law will not stop child abuse as evidenced in the recent cases. An overwelming majority of people who participated in the referendum want the law reversed. You say that you don't want to waste governments time by spending time on this, however if you don't I believe that you will loose the next election because of this.

#26 - martin 2009-08-29 11:57 - (Reply)

John - the anti-smacking - I have three comments - The law needs to be as clear as possible, just making the decision to prosecute the police's will cause confusion and undue stress to anyone who gets charged. Making the family situation worse, not better and dragging the stress out for longer. Most parents understand this. Which brings me to my next point. I'm getting the feeling that by not removing this law, following the referendum result you are being weak or you are not listening to the very people who support you. It would be better to table a change and have it voted down in the house than to not side with the people. If you don't change the law the whole process has been a complete waste of time and you will lose the trust of the voters. Martin

#27 - ron said:
2009-08-29 19:06 - (Reply)

I voted for you because I thought you had integrety and would be a breath of fresh air after years of arrogant hellen,she did not listen to the people either we were glad to see her go, will the same happen to you? do you think the public doesn't care what you do about what they want and what they say?come on don't let your spporters down use some common sense please

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.