The last few days have seen many public statements from journalists and MPs expressing disapproval of the referendum question and of the cost. The Prime Minister’s reassurance that he believes the law is working well and that he will not be changing the law is very welcome. Many people say that they are “over” the debate about child discipline.
So it may be tempting to ignore the referendum altogether. But there are some excellent reasons to vote in the referendum, and support A YES Vote.
To demonstrate that people are not fooled by the referendum’s tricky question.
To continue to demonstrate to politicians that there is support for the law.
To address attempts to undermining public confidence in the law.
To achieve some quiet time for the law to bed down peacefully and have a positive effect on the way children are disciplined in New Zealand.
To observe over time, and in an unbiased way, how it is working in practice.
If over time we find that there are cases where prosecutions would have been best avoided because they involve trivial assaults and the stress caused by prosecutions is counter-indicated lets look at measures outside law to ensure that these are handled in a compassionate way. We do not need to re-introduce a law that says some assaults on children are acceptable and that physical punishment is ok part of family discipline.
Family First are determined to prove that investigations and prosecutions in cases where there are suspicions of assaults on children are unwarranted and that good parents are being prosecuted because of the child discipline law. Unfortunately the information they give about the cases is not enough to make a judgement about whether or not action was warranted. Neither Police nor CYF will release information on cases. Media reports and court proceedings sometimes provide information but in reality few cases are getting to court. What Family First provide seem to be stories as told by people who are being investigated for ill-treatment of their children and not verified by independent assessment.
In the referendum question that Family First regards as valid the standard set for acceptable assault seems to be a “smack”. This definition does not address questions such as how hard, whether an implement was involved, on what part of the body, at what age, how often and administered by whom? These could all be relevant questions when considering whether a “smack” might compromise a child’s safety and sense of security.
Both the Police and CYF are required to investigate reports of alleged harm to a child and so they should. Any such reports could mean that the child is at risk. Whether there is further action after an investigation requires careful consideration of the facts. These facts could include type of force used, degree of force used, part of body affected, presence or otherwise of injury, age of child, circumstances of the harm inflicted, family history of violence and attitude of the adult(s) involved.
The Police data Family First claim to have obtained under OIA, most of which had already been published, unfortunately gives no detail about the kind of assaults involved. In the past Family First have defended the behaviour of parents whose actions have subsequently been found to be quite abusive. It is reasonable to assume that “smacking” and minor acts of physical discipline, refer to cases where section 59 might have been used as a defence (successfully or unsuccessfully) before law change. Even if there is a valid concern that it might have been obvious to the Police that these cases were low enough on the scale of violence not to warrant investigation nine cases is not a huge number – nothing like the flood of good parents being prosecuted we were warned by Family First to expect.
The third category used in police data is “other child assault”. This refers to more and heavy handed assaults and complex circumstances that no one could find reasonable or acceptable and are likely to have been prosecuted under the old law.
The sensible and compassionate sentences (called weak resolutions by Family First) imposed in the cases that have gone through court and been found guilty do not indicate that the judge took the matter lightly. It is more likely that judges have understanding of the need to set standards in law at the same time as avoiding unnecessary hardship on families.
In examining the details of the cases where investigations are reported to have taken place we must keep in mind the natural tendency of people accused to minimise their own wrongdoing and present their own side of the story. As previously stated verification of the stories is not provided and in any case on the face of it much of the adult behaviour reported seemed to indicate a problem existed.
The only real conclusions we can draw from the material provided by Family First is that there is interest in the community in reporting apparent ill-treatment of children which is a good thing, and that appropriate investigations are taking place.
Jigsaw Family Services is urging New Zealanders to put themselves in children’s shoes over the so-called smacking referendum.
“What would our children do if they were allowed to vote? Would they ask to be smacked because they thought it was good for them?” says Liz Kinley, Jigsaw’s CEO (Strategic Operations).
Jigsaw’s network of 34 community agencies employs about 500 staff to stop child abuse and family violence.
“Because children don’t have a voice in the debate it’s up to child-centred agencies to speak out on their behalf. Children are telling us they’re confused when people they love and trust hit them.
“It makes them resentful rather than relaxed and confident. And it teaches them that hitting is an acceptable way of expressing anger or disapproval.”
The controversy around the ambiguous wording of the referendum question should not deter voters from affirming the existing legislation by voting “yes”.
Liz Kinley says a “yes” vote is a vote for our children. It reinforces their right to have the same legal protection as adults.
“We don’t want parents to end up in court for a light smack and because the law gives police discretion over prosecutions that isn’t happening.
“Parents want to do the best job they can. They may have been whacked as children. They know it doesn’t work and want to treat their own children differently.”
Jigsaw’s agencies are committed to helping families find better ways to nurture and discipline children.
“The demand for our parenting programmes shows New Zealand is moving to a place where hitting children isn’t tolerated. Two decades ago we made the transition in our schools. So why not in our own homes?” says Liz Kinley.
Contact: Liz Kinley, Jigsaw CEO (Strategic Operations), 04 385 7983 / 027 2303312 or Shona Geary, Media Adviser, 027 573 1125
Anton Blank, director of Te Kahui Mana Ririki, appeared on TV1 yesterday and spoke with great clarity about the child discipline issue and child abuse. Anton argues that there are no quick fixes, and it will take generations of sustained effort to realise significant change.
Smacking is just another form of violence against children that sits on a continuum of violent behaviours that includes maiming and killing our children, and all those behaviours need to be eradicated.
Tonight’s Campbell Live asks the question, “What would you do with $9 million?” A txt poll taken by Campbell Live shows that 61% of respondents believe that $9m on a referendum is a waste of money. Larry Baldock, the person who organised the referendum, seems confused about how best to spend $9m of taxpayer money. But not too confused to try to take advantage of the situation.
Baldock has issued a ransom letter to John Key stating that he’d withdraw the referendum if the government removes subclause 2 and subclause 3 from Section 59 of the Crimes Act… in other words, reintroduces “reasonable force” as a defence against assaulting a child.
That’s unlikely. We the taxpayers get to pay the price for Larry’s Folly.
It’s time to share some love. Over the last few days, we’ve had lots of coverage from a variety of blogs, and we’d like to give you the opportunity to see what others are saying. We’d like you consider supporting our friends who support us, by visiting their blogs occasionally and joining in the conversation.
The Hand Mirror has supported us from the start, most recently pointing out how confused John Boscawen is over the whole issue. They were the first to run our skyscraper.
If you think Christians are on the wrong side of this debate, think again. Christian Social Services (the folks who have to deal with the consequences of bad behaviour) are right behind us. Other brave religious souls have also spoken out.
In today’s Herald, Brian Rudman points out that the $8.9M being spent on the referendum is equivalent to half the money that the government spends on adult education, or a quarter of what Barnardos spends each year on helping children in need.
He continues:
For all their fear-mongering, the pro-smackers have been unable to produce any evidence to back their claims that good parents will be marched off to slappers prison. The best they could come up with as a poster boy for their cause was Christchurch musician and father-of-six, Jimmy Mason. A month ago he was convicted of assaulting his 4-year-old son.
He was dubbed the “ear-flick dad” but witnesses and even he told a different story.
A witness saw him yelling at the boy in downtown Christchurch, saw him yank his ear and hit him in the face with a closed fist. Mr Mason’s version was he gave the boy “a bloody good flick” because he was “being a prat”.
A policewoman testified he repeatedly shouting “f … ing listen” to the child and told her “I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do …”
Later, on what passes as television current affairs these days, Mr Mason was given the chance to recreate his attempts to teach his youngsters safe bike riding practices.
He thought better of repeating the physical violence, or the angry swearing. But if he’s the best the smackers can do by way of a martyr figure, they should apologise for wasting our time – and money.
Green Party MP Sue Bradford this morning launched a Member’s Bill aimed at ending the use of confused questions in Citizens Initiated Referenda.
“Many New Zealanders have been shocked this week to discover the actual wording of the referendum question proposed by opponents of the law change that helps keep children safe from violence,” said Ms Bradford.
“The Green Party believes it is high time we ended the practice of allowing referenda petitions containing ambiguous questions to be put forward.
“My Citizens Initiated Referenda (Wording of Question) Amendment Bill will be placed in the parliamentary member’s ballot this Thursday 18 June, if one is held.
“The Bill requires the Clerk of the House to only allow referendum questions which are not ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading.
“If a person proposing a referendum question has their wording turned down, they will still have the option of reformulating their question until it meets the new criteria.
“Given comments by Prime Minister John Key yesterday that he thinks stricter rules around referenda questions should be introduced, I am also hopeful that even if my Bill is not drawn from the ballot this week, the Government may pick it up,” said Ms Bradford.
“I believe there would be cross party support for such an amendment.
“There are people who will be confused by the referendum and choose not to vote. There are also people who support the current law but don’t want to engage in a badly-worded and misleading referendum.
“However, I still believe the strongest statement we can make to demonstrate our commitment to protecting our children from violence is to vote ‘yes’ in the postal referendum.”
For your viewing pleasure, we present the following light-hearted look at the passage and implications of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Act 2007.
Note that this video was posted to YouTube in March 2008 as a university project well before a date was set for the referendum by a student, and contains a couple of inaccuracies:
The Timaru lady didn’t use a horsewhip, it was a riding crop, which is an implement used for whipping horses. Just to be clear – we wouldn’t want people to think that we were exaggerating the facts.
You don’t need to worry about going to jail for lightly smacking your own child; no-one has been sent to jail for that. On the other hand, if you smack your wife or your boss – watch out, there’s a future for you at Paremoremo.
Did you think this video was funny and informative? Send it to your friends!
Larry Baldock, the organiser of the referendum,was comprehensively owned by Sean Plunket on National Radio’s Morning Report programme today.
The referendum organiser cannot come up with a single example where a parent has been criminalised for smacking a child.
Baldock: It is absolutely clear that if a parent uses any reasonable force right now to correct their child right now they are breaking the law…
Plunket: Can you give us an example of that having happened?
Baldock: There are examples that we’ll have available…
Plunket: Can you give us a single example of that having happened, please?
Baldock: There was a grandfather for example, who tipped his grandson out of a chair because the grandson refused to obey his grandfather to turn down the television and so on.
Plunket: Was he convicted and was that a smack?
Baldock: He plead guilty …
Plunket: Was that a smack?
Baldock: No, he tipped him out of a chair….
…
Plunket: Can you point to anyone who has been criminalised for smacking a child?
Baldock: Yes we can.
Plunket: Please, could you give me an example?
Baldock: Well, I’ll have to go to my list of examples.
Plunket: Can you give me a single example off the top of your head?
Baldock: No, not off the top of my head, I can’t.
… and so on.
Wouldn’t it be nice to send Baldock a bill for $9m?
If you are going to use or distribute material from our campaign in any way, eg remixed or mashed up, please ensure that your actions are compliant with the relevant legislation, as the Yes Vote Coalition cannot take responsibility for actions beyond our control or knowledge.
The bottom line is that we want to play by the rules. We appreciate your support, but please act ethically, thoughtfully, and within the law.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
