Final vote looks to be 65 – 56
March 30th, 2007 at 7:24 am by David FarrarAs expected, some of the National MPs who voted for the smacking ban bill at the second reading, have withdrawn their support for the third reading, as the Borrows amendment was rejected. Four of the six MPs will vote no now, while two will vote yes.
I think it is 90% likely it will become a Government bill on Monday. But there may be some difficulties. Peter Dunne, who is backing the bill, has said he is opposed to it becoming a Government bill.
No tag for this post.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
The cynics would say that Hutchison, Power and Blue have seen the public opinion polls and are just voting to keep their posts.
(Actually, I don’t mind why they are now voting against Bradford — I just wonder why it took them so long?) And if it is a catalyst to some other MPs showing some spine and deciding to really be a Representative of the people instead of a pre-programmed lapdog, then all the better. Or have Labour MPs forgotten the original meaning of the word “hero”?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
This is sick when you read recently; police have told a Fielding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).
Vote:This is evidence that this smacking bullshit saga will not solve appalling child abuse and it will only create more work for the already over stretched police and a totally dysfunctional and dangerous CYFS – as the Minister in charge has lost the plot. Sad that radical feminists have such a strangle hold on kiwi social policy, surely it’s time for parents of the nation to tell this freakshow government to take a long hike and balance the scales of common sense.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Child death rate from being smacked—0%
Child death rate from abortion clinic visit—-100%.
Which one is legal?
Which one are taxpayers forced to pay for?
Which politician got elected by using weasel words like “common sense”?
Which politicians support the right of a mother-to-be to abort but, upon becoming a mother, deny her the right to smack?
Who, out of the many commenters on this subject on this blog over the last few weeks hold the same view as those politicians?
How twisted could anyone get?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
so what’s up with Rich does she think we’re beating our kids too?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Stan the “ism” is bigger than government mate.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
One can understand Dunne’s point – the United Party has no “unity” on the bill but is associated with the government.
dad4justice
If police are saying they will only refer smacking allegations over to CYPS, this means they are handing this over to others rather than laying any prosecutions.
If the CYPS Minister says they should ignore complaints about smacking … then as the government has said, there will be no consequences for parents who smack in the future, just as there have been none in the past.
The law change is simply to end the Section 59
Vote:defence of reasonable force – where violence has been used in the disciplining of minors – involving beatings and use of weapons – straps/whips etc.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
So logically you support the Burrows amendment over the act as it stands then SPC
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
And Burrows over Bradfords amendment
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
The government is obviously unwilling to legitimise violence against children by citing what force parents can use. As if approving of this.
The purpose of the law is not to say how far one can go.
The government is trying to have a dollar each way – on the one hand say that legal sanction CAN apply when parents resort to violence and on the other say that parents who use mainstream methods – such as smacking have NO reason to fear any prosecution.
There are two situations I can accept
either a definition of allowable smacking as the reasonable force
and this legislation (this approach is more ambitious in changing attitudes but has a more nuanced application) with two riders
1. Ministerial direction that CYPS will not regard smacking as a sign of family disfunction
Vote:2. A PM statement that the public should not make complaints to the police about minor use of force open palm of hand smacking, nor would any reasonable person expect any prosecution be laid if such were made.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
“The purpose of the law is not to say how far one can go.”
But that is the purpose of law!
“The government is trying to have a dollar each way”
Yep, so where are the two riders? And such riders would not be binding, either on CYFS or on “the public”.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Andrew
Criminal law does not say what one can do, but what one cannot.
Both “riders” apply once the legislation has been passed, rather than before.
They would have more effect on CYFS than the public – but police would note the direction to CYFS and thus take little notice of public complaints. Police would only have real cause to pass on anything to CYFS if children laid them. And CYFS would realise there was no criminal matter at hand, just a child with a grievance about parental discpline.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Andrew
Criminal law does not say what one can do, but what one cannot.
Both “riders” apply once the legislation has been passed, rather than before.
They would have more effect on CYFS than the public – but police would note the direction to CYFS and thus take little notice of public complaints. Police would only have real cause to pass on anything to CYFS if children laid them. And CYFS would realise there was no criminal matter at hand, just a child with a grievance about parental discpline.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:14 am
SPC
there will be no consequences for parents who smack in the future, just as there have been none in the past.
How is being judged by your kid of “no consequence”.
You obviously don’t have kids.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:21 am
SPC again.
Criminal law does not say what one can do, but what one cannot.
Rubbish. It says both. What part of
Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances
is so difficult to recognise is a grant of rights? It’s specifically saying “you’re allowed to do this…”
try harder…
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:30 am
and…
by the time the police are involved, and referred to CYPS who after investigation decide not to press any charges (even though the law would only require them to prove force was used at all for correction, not whether it was reasonable)..
so after all that, you’ve got a real mess to clean up with your kid.
So, we’re supposed to create this law so that we can create a bunch of messes to clean up?
good one!
I’m sure the police and CYPS have much better things to do. We have too many people in prison already, why create new crimes?
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 1:58 am
adrien
“How is being judged by your kid of “no consequence You obviously don’t have kids.”
If smacking children results in their being disappointed with their parents choice to discipline in this way … well that would be the case whether this legislation passed or not.
Obviously some parents have cited the reasonable force permission for their right to use physical force – and all sorts of “weapons” have been used. But the real issue is not legal right, but acceptance or disagreement about whether this is the way to go about parenting. The new legislation uses more nuetral “good parenting” terminology.
Given reasonable force in Section 59 never specified what level of force was reasonable – it did not sanction anything. It left it to the jury to decide whether assault had occured. Based on what their peers saw as reasonable discipline/good parenting.
Why would police be involved or CYFS, if the child had not made a complaint over any commonplace parenting resort to the occasional smacking? Why would there be any more referrals than now?
“I’m sure the police and CYPS have much better things to do. We have too many people in prison already, why create new crimes?”
Why would police act on matters they could not gain a conviction on? Why would CYFS act on matters they knew were of mainstream parenting practice?
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 6:20 am
SPC: No offense, but yours are the classic, abstract legalistic courtroom perspectives that absolutely define the nonsense that this legislative change embodies.
Parenting is a practiced art. It is neither an empirical science nor a buffoonish legal construct.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
So SPC you think you know law would like you to answer one question, and please try and alert all brain cells. Do you know that the matter of smacking will be dealt with the under domestic violence under DV Act 1995 (thanks Jenny) and the Care of Children Act 2004? As child abuse cases are sensitive the alleged culpable party will be held in the can 24 hours and they are guilty until proved innocent, which is almost impossible for kiwi fathers ( and decent mums ) who find themselves falsely accused. These tragic cases are usually made under the following limitations in the family court : “ no publication of the proceeding is permitted under s 125 of the domestic violence act 1995 without leave of the court. And with the exception of publications of bona fide professional or technical failure, and nay publication must comply with s139 Care of children act”.
I know you utopian’s are very thick, so I will explain, someone complains to the smack police/ cyfs. They are obliged to arrest under domestic violence. Then it is all done behind the macabre and secretive walls of the family court, which is a gender bias – grey area civil court, and hey presto matters are then referred onto criminal jurisdiction. Then all the lawyers and psychologists get a brand new car. The destruction of the family by the feminazi’s has been well planned and thought out. Did you know Labour/Greens want dads taken off birth certificates. This is getting beyond a sick joke !!
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“Did you know Labour/Greens want dads taken off birth certificates. This is getting beyond a sick joke !!”
Vile, Have you got further info?
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Before labour decided that criminalising most NZ parents was a worthy goal I wouldn’t have believed this, but nothing would surprise me now.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 11:20 pm
If smacking children results in their being disappointed with their parents choice to discipline in this way … well that would be the case whether this legislation passed or not.
Sorry but that doesn’t hold empirically. Kids are a lot more bitter about being smacked if they believe it’s illegal to boot, since they then have to deal with the belief that their parents are breaking the law and that they are being abused illegally, and good parents teach kids that they mustn’t break the law. Quite a different scenario to “disappointment about choice of discipline methods”… what 3yr old knows about alternatives of discipline methods anyway?
Lots of proponents of the bill have said in their comments about how they resented being disciplined with force. Plenty more opponents say they hold no bitterness. So, maybe one could consider that perhaps those particular parents weren’t particularly skilled in parenting. It’s not the same story for all families. Maybe the poor wee resentful people should get over it or seek some counselling… they are wasting their life with resentment. I was smacked and don’t hold any resentment at all – I saw it as fair. Lots of modern discipline techniques are seen as not fair by kids. But any technique you use isn’t suitable for kids to use on others or adults on others either. So with any technique you also have to teach the kid it’s not allowed to use it on others.
And how do you explain the double-standard to your kids? Easy. It’s not a double standard at all if you consider the responsibility side of the coin (which the proponents of the bill are deliberatly ignoring).
You are responsible for the kid, the kid (under 14) isn’t legally responsible for anything at all. When the kid grows up and has children then it can exercise some necessary powers. Responsibilities come with rights. It’s quite logical and easily understood by kids.
I also have to laugh at the idiots who make the comparison between kids, wives and dogs, saying you can’t beat your dog or your wife but you want to beat your kid. Apart from being sick and twisted, these people deliberately (dishonestly) ignore that facts that
a) you’re not responsible for the actions of your wife – she is. You are responsible for the actions of your kids.
b) your dog has all sorts of special rights, like the right to be destroyed if it bites someone.
Why would police be involved or CYFS, if the child had not made a complaint over any commonplace parenting resort to the occasional smacking? Why would there be any more referrals than now?
I didn’t think you were that naiive. How many abuse cases do you think are currently reported by the kids? Very few. Most are reported by teachers and doctors etc. So, why would there be any more? Because it’s become illegal. Kids are being coached in the classroom to come forward if there are any abuse issues. We are creating a society of dobber-inners (plenty of other evidence of that in other statutes as well). George Orwell just got the date wrong on his book, it shoulda been 2008, not 1984.
Vote: