Anti Smacking Bill now passed
The anti-smacking bill has now passed and once it gets royal assent the Crimes Act will be amended to remove the defence of of reasonable force for parental correction. It replace it with reasaonble force for the purpose of stopping a crime, preventing harm, preventing offensive or disruptive behaviour and good parenting so long as it is not correctional. And with the Clark/Key compromise an explicit statement that Police can use discretion when the offence is inconsequential and a prosecution would not in the public interest.
It passed 113-8. Those against were two from ACT, Gordon Copeland, Judy Turner, Taito Phillip Field and in a hilarious attempt at populism, four NZ First MPs.
I still regard the bill as pretty flawed law, and suspect it will have to be revisited at some stage. The compromise did provide some welcome direction to the Police and should hopefully see the Police avoid Subway type trivial prosecutions in this area. But for me the concern was never prosecution but more how CYFS could use the law, and the possibility of couples going through a divorce using it as a tool in custody battles etc.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Its appallingly badly thought out and badly worded legislation, and is going to remain very unpopular.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Are you sure that it was 4 NZ First MP’s?
The vote was only 8 against, but you have listed 9 mps:
2 ACT
1 Gordan Copeland
1 Judy Turner
1 Taito Phillip Field
4 NZ First
= 9
May 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Todays photos of Bradford and her cohorts celebrating last night is an appalling indictment on parliament. They have effectively achieved absolutely nothing and have wasted millions of dollars and wasted everyones time. The only good to come out of this is that Helen is completed fucked now and hopefully Bradford will not be there after the next election.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:37 am
One good thing about this is we have found out early on in the piece that John Key cannot be trusted.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Todays photos of Bradford and her cohorts celebrating last night is an appalling indictment on parliament. They have effectively achieved absolutely nothing and have wasted millions of dollars and wasted everyones time. The only good to come out of this is that Helen is completed fucked now and hopefully Bradford will not be there after the next election.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
“The vote was only 8 against, but you have listed 9 mps”
I believe Copeland managed to forget the bill was being voted on.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I reamin very afraid for parents of young children.
I am very afraid of the precedent this sets and nervously await the next intrusion into our homes/lives/freedoms.
For the first time in my life I am seriously considering not bothering to vote at the next general election.
The issue has been thrashed to death and I guess I have nothing new to say , just that this is a very sad day for NZ.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am
DPF said “But for me the concern was never prosecution but more how CYFS could use the law”.
Why the concern? I thought CYFS was completely above the law anyway; being able to kidnap children without notice, without reason, and without accountability.
Am I wrong?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Welcome to 1984. This countrys pollies are will and truly evil bastards the state has no interest in what the people are saying.
FUCK THE LOT OF YOU.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Are you sure that it was 4 NZ First MP’s?
The vote was only 8 against, but you have listed 9 mps
Yes, ironically, Copeland never voted because he was too busy grandstanding at the time of the vote.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Key lost my vote. Compromising (even trying to have a logical conversation) with that moron Bradford proves he is as soft in the head as cream cheese.
Go ACT!
May 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Craig says, “For the first time in my life I am seriously considering not bothering to vote at the next general election.”
I was considering the same thing until Gordon Copeland has given a choice for those who oppose this anti-family legislation
May 17th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Congratulations must go to Mr and Mrs Spank, and now I look forward to take a short sharp ride to bottomland.
I hope the smacking police stop people hitting babies on the head with blunt instruments?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
umm, a hilarious attempt at populism? i mean, huh huh, what party are you from again?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
There are people out there who would like a smacking,from a pretty young thing and wouldnt complain if it was for correction and not for discipline , helen whip us we love it, ps put our tax up ,we deserve it, and tax us for roading and rail, shit i feel wet, thinking about the more hours we will have to work, for your egos ,him ,cullen and her,liar ,(but next year we can sing ,TIME TO SAY GOODBYE goodbye) LIAR
May 17th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Certainly, the whole thing has been a waste of time. The idea that pols who send such mixed messages can, in the end, produce a coherent policy that properly governs how parents discipline their children is ridiculous. Politicians were never supposed to be in that line of work, anyway. What we have is pols tapping into parental apathy out there when it comes to discipline who are therefore willing to allow their rights to be eroded. “Those who don’t exercise their rights will lose them.”
The irony is that this apathy exists because discipline figures *less* for parents than it used to, and that includes smacking. And so, the idea that smacking – more unpopular than ever – is to be blamed for child abuse that didn’t once exist in such numbers is absurd.
It is this unpoplarity that justifies the bill politically in the first place!
In fact, there is now more child abuse than ever before because of out-of-control pols defining smacking as such. Hurray! (But they claim those parents won’t be prosecuted anyway…. Can you believe we have such idiotic leaders?)
This bill is worthless as a way of reducing child abuse. The only value of it is to leftwing ideologues who want to transfer more power to the state. Anything other reason is…illogical.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Hilarious.
If you don’t like it….keep your hands to yourselves. Whatever the hell happened to personal responsibility?
May 17th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
It would be really neat to see somebody bring a private prosecution under this act. That would show Sue Bradford and her cronies right up. Just imagine seeing some harrassed menstruating Green Party member lightly tap her son at the check out counter; the light smack was entirely justified and reasonable; indeed if she didn’t do it, I probably would have. You have seen the story. Then take a private prosecution under the Crimes Act – it would be lovely.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Sue Bradford and the greenies are the useless of the society. They don’t fuck’n produce anything at all, while trying to hinder the effort of people who are producing real wealth. Even Selma who doesn’t produce would be affected , since her employer (the real producer) is subjected to stupid laws enacted by useless leechers such as Bradford & Company. It is fucking disgusting that this country is run by people who don’t contribute to society by producing tangible products or services where they can participate in exchanges of goods and trading amongst citizens, but whinger about this or that. I am disturbed to see that the producers (the useful) of the society had to constantly ask the useless such as Bradford for permission in order to produce. This lots of useless includes Green Peace, Friends of the Earth, Green Party members, Coalition Against Obesity, Supporters of the Subway sacked worker, Unions, etc. The useless always demand to get a share of what is not theirs, whether it is cheap broadband, free medical care by state funding, higher wages, etc,…
May 18th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
So if you are concerned about CYFS why didn’t you have something put in to restrain them?
You said the deal between Key and Clark is “putting New Zealand first” yet the single biggest thing that would be good for New Zealand right now is for Labour to be out of office. Letting them off the hook over a toothless amendment doesn’t achieve that at all.
We have the spectre of Labour’s duplicitous double dealing dodgering with United Future. UFNZ comes to do C/S agreement with Labour, negotiates for policies X Y and Z. Labour says “yes” all the while in the backroom the dirty dealers are thinking “how can we kill this policy stone dead without United noticing?”
Come election time all United will have to point to is a few hundred thousand for managing some Thar in the back blocks, hardly going to set the world in fire is it? As you righly pointed out the tax brackets adjustments were an election year promise. They were also a policy of United Future which they campaigned for. The arbitrary cancellation is dirty dealing on Labour’s part.
Remember this? “The relationship between United Future and the government will be based on good faith and no surprises”. LOL.
http://www.vdig.net/hansard/content.jsp?id=1257961
“…But in one area a strong case has been made for change, not least by the United Future Party. That is in relation to the movement of the three main personal tax thresholds to match inflation as is done with excise duty on petrol, tobacco, and alcohol. ” – Michael Cullen, 2005 Budget speech.
So. United advocates for this policy. Labour agrees to implement it. Then Labour arbitrarily cancels it. That all sound like real dirty dealing on Labour’s part. Not a squeak from Dunne so far on this. But Labour has sold them down the river.
Now, back to the Section 59 Bill. I will stop short of suggesting that Labour has pulled a similar swifty on Key, although it certainly has that appearance about it. Why let Labour off the hook? Doesn’t make any sense. Clark has got her get out of jail free card. I think this move by Key is something he will come to regret in the future. Why has it become so acceptable to deal with such a duplicitous bunch as Labour when they have shown themselves to be unworthy of any trust at all?
May 28th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I think its sad that the bill has passed. No one has the right to tell parents how to look after there kids.
Sue bradford thinks she is doing her job and yes she maybe and yes she got what she wanted but bet my very own ASS parents who discipline there children are not going to stop no matter what the bill says they are still going to discipline there kids and the bill is not going to stop them.
So i think Sue Bradford can EAT A FAT ONE!! and go get FUCKED!! because even a BITCH is not going to tell parents what to do.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I think its sad that the bill has passed. No one has the right to tell parents how to look after there kids.
Sue bradford thinks she is doing her job and yes she maybe and yes she got what she wanted but bet my very own ASS parents who discipline there children are not going to stop no matter what the bill says they are still going to discipline there kids and the bill is not going to stop them.
So i think Sue Bradford can EAT A FAT ONE!! and go get FUCKED!! because even a BITCH is not going to tell parents what to do.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
heyah..
well i believe that the anti smacking bill is to extreme im all for non violence but when it comes to disciplining a child a strongly believe that if force is neccesary then it should be applied, though in saying that i believe that when applying force as a method of discipline that the the amount of force should be reasonable as well as appropriate.
i believe that when disciplining a child that care and caution should be taken into consideration, also that such extreme “accsessories” such as wooden spoons and planks of wood should not be used, i believe in using force to discipline a child but i believe that there should be reasonable guidelines to be followed, so that is still can be viewed as a safe enviroment.
the society and generation of today is becoming more wilder, dangerous and abusive.
there is a lack of respect towards the elder community, goverment and the public property as well as the law though personally i believe the area that lacks in the most respect is personal respect.. so with all this in mind discipline needs to be more stricter and more serious to change and deal with the youth of today.
though every child is different not one is the same so therefore different methods of discipline should be applied to every different child, as the parents of the child needs to find a disciplary method that works is reasonable so that they will learn fom the mistake made and there will not be a repeat.
almost every second week there is a article in the paper a issue on the news about youths misbehahaviour, and recently there was a issue on the news about the increase in youth amoung gangs as well as the creation of new and unnessary gangs.. in watching that i thought that new zealand isnt as safe as it use to be, and what if that was my sibling, cousin or just a relative was a victim of youth misbehaviour?? and one of the preventions the offender could’ve benefitted from was the correct discipline from their parents.. so next time you think of to or not to discipline ya child think what can or will happen to them or to members of the public if you dont discipline them..
im against the anti smacking bill being admitted.. so if a 18 year old can write and believe all this then shouldnt there be a re-think in the admition of the anti smacking bill?? lets hope that we society can think faster to reach a fit resouloution before the rapid crime rate increases even higher than it is..