Herald on anti-smacking law
The NZ Herald editorial:
The Prime Minister’s appointment of child psychologist Nigel Latta to lead a review of the smacking law was an inspired one. Dr Latta, a noted defender of smacking, has undertaken the work with an open mind and has come to conclusions that should answer the concerns of 87 per cent of those who voted in the recent referendum.
Dr Latta, assisted by Police Commissioner Howard Broad and the head of the Ministry of Social Development, Peter Hughes, has found that smacking as most people know it – light, admonitory, open-handed and instantaneous – remains permissible. Social workers are not alarmed by it and police are not prosecuting it, despite all the claims to the contrary of initiators of the referendum.
The review has found none of their cited cases stood up to closer scrutiny. Police investigations that seemed trivial or frivolous at first glance all turned out to contain more serious elements than the parents had admitted to campaigners such as Family First. Dr Latta said: “In all cases there wasn’t one where I thought the only reason [the police] investigated was because of the law change. In every case, when I looked at the police file, it was blindingly obvious why they had.”
I still think the law is a bad law, and that the Borrows/Boscawen amendment would be a far better law. I even think the original Bradford bill (merely to delete S59) would be a better law than the current one which is says it is fine to smack for some reasons, but not for others – and doesn’t define what level of force is reasonable.
So I would still like a law change. However Latta’s review of the disputed cases is reassuring that the Police and CYFS are not pursuing parents just for a light correctional smack. I was already pretty confident the Police were not over-reaching, but was worried about some of the zealousness you can get with CYFS.
Dr Latta’s findings ought to put to rest the fears of many parents who have been under the misapprehension that the Bradford bill outlawed smacking entirely. It never did, though it often seemed Sue Bradford was content to leave that impression. A complete ban would have been fine with her.
Well it does outlaw correctional smacking entirely. But it is unlikely you will be sanctioned for breaking it. John Key once compared it to speeding – if you do 51 km/hr in a 50 km/hr zone that is breaking the law, but you won’t get pinged.
Bradford did indeed want to ban smacking entirely. Even worse she lied about her intentions and said it was not about banning smacking. If she had been honest from the beginning, the law may not have met such anger.
The law expressly allows parents to use reasonable force to stop or prevent a child doing something dangerous, disruptive, offensive or persisting in such behaviour. Confusion was created because the law also says smacking is not permitted as a means of “correction” alone.
And that is why I think the Borrows law is superior. It defines reasonable force (and sets it at a very low level) but doesn’t leave you trying to work out if a smack is for preventing disruption (ok), good parenting (ok) or correction (not ok).
December 9th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I don’t care what the Police aren’t prosecuting now. I care what they will prosecute when we have our next leftist government.
Change the law now so the leftists will have to fight to get it back in.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The old law worked. Juries routinely convicted and on few occasions where the law may have been strictly broken they brought their collective wisdom to the jury room and decided that a conviction was not appropriate. One of the joys of the jury system. What was “reasonable” has changed with society. A caning for example would have been entirely acceptable 30 years ago but would now, even under s59 as it was, almost inevitably end in a conviciton.
Bradford wanted to ban smacking. Key came to a compromise and good on him. The best of a bad deal and all.
This is not a case of which tinkering is best. The Burrows amendment was equally unnecessary although better. Reasonable force does not need the collective bureaucracy of Parliament to ill define it. (If for no other reason than what is reasonable depends on context, circumstances and even time – as I noted above what is reasonable force has changed).
The current law is bad law because it makes something illegal that the vast majority of us want the right to do and then places an unfair pressure on the police and prosecutors to exercise discretion.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
It’s still a dogs breakfast. You can but you can’t smack? It denigrates the law and makes it a mockery. I want to obey the law of the land, but this law makes it impossible for ordinary citizens who are not lawyers to be good parents without worrying about over zealous social workers. Never mind the police. They are just the reporting mechanism now. It’s CYPFS that will take your kids away if they feel you aren’t raising your children sufficiently socialist-minded.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Judge Lindsay Moore has suggest throwing a glass of water over your kids as a way to instill discipline, well to get them off to school anyway.
It is an idea with some merit and anyone pinged for it could use this case as a precedent
December 9th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
andrei – that would be assault, raising ones voice would be verbal abuse and cessation of any privileges would be physiological abuse. Perhaps parents should just hand their kids to the state for raising from birth.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“The review has found none of their cited cases stood up to closer scrutiny. Police investigations that seemed trivial or frivolous at first glance all turned out to contain more serious elements than the parents had admitted to campaigners such as Family First. Dr Latta said: “In all cases there wasn’t one where I thought the only reason [the police] investigated was because of the law change. In every case, when I looked at the police file, it was blindingly obvious why they had”
The above comments have been widely reported and have been taken at face value.
What did Dr Latta do in his review. Did he
1. Read Family First’s report, then the Police & CYF’s, and decide that what ever the Police & CYF’s wrote should be accurate and is the correct version of events.
2. or Did he independently interview all witnesses, check statements vs written reports, interview person concerned. Then form his own opinion.
I am betting it is #1
December 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
@andrei:
In order to get someone out of bed with water, you first try a drop on their forehead, then a thimble full of water, then an egg cup, then a mug, then a pint glass.
Most people get up when confronted with the egg cup – I’ve yet to see anyone, even the most acutely hung over, stay in bed after a mug of water. Although I’d swear I saw a man leap eight feet in the air when his girlfriend decided to start not with a drop, but with a whole pint of water straight from the freezer.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
No, to be fair, I am betting #2.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
You know the good Lord made 10 laws and then in the New Testament shortened these down to 2. Love the Lord with all your heart and then Love your neighbour as yourself. If we simply obeyed these two you could throw most of our other laws out the window!
Governments need to realize that you can’t change society by legislation, however it is very easy to frustrate society by legislation and this is preciously what is happening with this “anti smacking” legislation.
They can give all the stories they like. I personally know families that have really suffered under this current legislation and it is no joke!
As other have said we need to support good Parents. Good Parents do set boundaries for their children and if they step outside of these, the children face consequences. This may include smacking! which certainly did not do my children any harm.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“It’s still a dogs breakfast.”
. . . as David may or may not intend to show by his last sentence here -
” doesn’t leave you trying to work out if a smack is for preventing disruption (ok), good parenting (ok) or correction (not ok).”
It is just : preventative OK ; corrective : NOT OK
Good parenting doesn’t come into it.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Nigel Latta has settled the anti-smacking debate, just as Al Gore settled the Global Warming Debate.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I’m with Jameship, GPT1 and Dime
Latta is being a political pillock.
He fails to address the issue of writing a law that you don’t mind people breaking.
Utter political crap as is John Key and National’s position.
As a social psychologist I’d love him to explain how one brings up kids with rules you don’t mind them breaking.
Duh!
December 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
@GPT:
The Borrows’ amendment didn’t define reasonable force, It defined a subset of force that was automatically unreasonable (e.g. using an implement, use of force the effects of which wasn’t transitory or trifling, etc.). What was reasonable was still up to a jury – even if it jumped through all the hoops, the jury could still convict.
@Yvette – good parenting does come into it. If a parent uses reasonable force that is for purposes incidental to good care and parenting they haven’t broken the law (i.e. can rely on the s 59 defence).
December 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
If ACT had 3 more seats and National had 3 less John Key would be listening. At the moment he is acting like a dictator. I heard he commented publicly that the police should not prosecute Hone for riding a motorcycle without a helmet around Parliament. I happen to agree but the PM should not being telling the police on what they offenses they should prosecute whether it relates to smacking or riding a motorcycle.
The only why the law will be changed is if ACT get enough MPs in the house to stop National playing the same games as Helen did with MMP. The does not just relate to the smacking debate but the Emissions Trading Scam as well.
VOTE ACT.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Latta is going to be on Jim Mora’s show on Labour Radio this afternoon (Wed.)
If you fire in questions quickly he might get them – afternoons@radionz.co.nz
December 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Graeme, to be more precise you mean other peoples view of what constitutes good parenting comes into.
The PM has already acknowledged the law is a dog’s breakfast.
Emeritus professor of law at Auckland University agrees with DPF that the current law is worse than Bradford’s original bill.
I find it very worrying that left wing liberal lawyers support a Prime Minister telling the police and government officials how to interpret the law. Would you be happy for the PM to tell the police how to interpret the Search and Surveillance Bill if it became law?
I bet you would not be happy with administrative fiat when it come to a law you object to.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
These silly expensive enquiries designed to justify various government viewpoints instead prove nothing. It was always likely that the Police would not prosecute trivial cases, although they have done a few. It is the unnecessary intrusion in family life and the associated expensive, stressful process that follows that was always the problem. The long term effects of out of control children and the expected lack of competency when they in turn become parents also seems likely to be more worriesome than global warming.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
getstaffed 12:37 pm,
Indeed.
Those other forms of ‘abuse’ will be picked up in time too, and reflected in new laws.
The really scary one is “physiological/psychological abuse”, as it is all encompassing – anything perceived as negative can be included here.
And your final sentence is in effect where we’re headed; if parents don’t tow the line as prescribed by the (socialist) state, then the kids will go to a state approved agency which will raise them as per dictates of the state.
I think both George Orwell and the Bible predicts such a world. And we’re not far off.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
MikeNZ 1:13 pm,
And this highlights another issue, Mike.
This law basically sends, especially, kids the message that you can break some laws/rules in certain situations.
Once again, we’re headed towards increasingly a ‘morally relativistic’, or ‘situational ethics’ type of reason base. There are no longer any absolutes, and we can just make the rules up, or change the rules, as and when required. How parents are to instill right and wrong in their kids minds is anybody’s guess. And as a result our future looks increasingly bleak.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Graeme – fair. That was a more precise way of putting it. I still think it is unnecessary. Is a cushion an implement?
MikeNZ – thanks for the support although to be fair I was not being critical of Nigel Latta (who I have an enormous amount of respect for – if for no other reason than he started a talk with ‘if you don’t like bad language you had better fuck off now’). I am critical of the law change and some of the disingenous justifications for it. My view is that Nigel Latta reported within the terms of reference he was provided. An argument could be had that those did not include issues such as parental confusion, disempowerment of parents viz. their children, undersireability (is htat a word?) of shite law etc.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
It was already the case that people don’t get arrested or charged for technical breaches of the law. If you bump into someone on the street, that is technically a crime. If you step on someone’s lawn while walking down the street, that is technically a crime. You grew up in a New Zealand where it was practical and necessary for people to not be arrested for breaking those laws. Did you turn out badly as a result of this crazy uncertainty?
December 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Ryan – it is not technically a crime to bump into someone in the street.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Ryan Sproull 3:46 pm,
I think you’re missing the point, Ryan, or being deliberately obtuse.
And I think you’re wrong.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Graeme,
Is it trespassing to step on someone’s lawn without their permission?
December 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Ryan, simple answer, no. there is a common law right that permits anyone to approach the front door of a house and seek the attention of the householder. Trespass cannot occur until you have been asked to leave the property by the owner or owner’s agent and you refuse to comply with that request.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Damn. Are there any examples where police habitually turn a blind eye to things that are technically crimes because the definition has to err on the side of crime to allow police to do their job?
December 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Well done Jack for a sensible comment. My goodness I even found myself agreeing with Pete George yesterday when he said something sensible. Wonders will never cease.
As many have stated previously the law is bad law and is criminalising parents for physically disciplining their own children. Interestingly enough the rate of assaults in schools has gone up markedly this year. I think teenagers have got the message that no one will do anything to them and they can misbehave with impunity.
So I am with David with regard to changing the law. However I would return to section 59 as it was, including the right of schools to have corporal punishment if they so choose. I believe our children’s behaviour will improve markedly through this measure and we will become a less violent society. At the moment we are becoming more violent in large part due to our previous government’s foolish utopian measures.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Ryan, DPF commented above :
John Key once compared it to speeding – if you do 51 km/hr in a 50 km/hr zone that is breaking the law, but you won’t get pinged.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
So Scott, let me get this right – by using violence as a discipline tool you believe we will become a less violent society? How does that work? A lot of the violent scum (killer bees, crips, bloods, mongrel mob, etc) have come from homes where “the bash” is normal. Do you see a connection?
December 9th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Ryan
I don’t think you are stupid nor disengenious but talking to type.
You’re wrong on bumping into someone as YOU well know.
You have said this before and I told you off then too.
Intention was the case then as it is now.
there is a big (read enormous) difference between an inadvertent bump in the street and a parent giving their child a smack on the bum because the child needs it.
But then you know this and that’s why you get a red card for being daft.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
MNIJ
All the above (with Ryan) applies to you too.
Being beaten and mangaled by an abusive parent is NOT the same as being disciplined by a loving parent.
YOU know this as does Ryan
December 9th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
What gets me is that Latta stated that Family First had been misled by some of the parents they used as examples leading up to the referendum. Bob McCroskie responded that he hadn’t just relied on the parents’ statements, but had also used the Police notes in their assessment. So if Latta’s view that neither the Police nor the social welfare agencies had overreacted is correct, and no one credible is doubting him, then Bob McCroskie & his people has been wilfully exaggerating the cases and spreading fear amongst, what he calls, good loving parents. He should be hung out to dry by the media for this. It’s seems likely to me that this whole thing is a beat up to give a Christian Party a fighting chance at getting into the house. To give them their due, it’s got a better chance than anything Graham Capill tried.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
MikeNZ said…
As a social psychologist
Mike, it’s idiots like Latta that give your profession a bad name.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
you’re right
December 9th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
wtf is a social psychologist?
Huh?
December 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Hi Jack. Well I agreed with your comment 1273, but in 1274 normal transmission was resumed.
Anyway — once again — there is a vast difference between normal parental discipline administered in the context of a married loving family and the bash which you are talking about. Smacking is — once again — particularly commended in the Bible, because if we don’t do it then we will spoil our children. Our children will go bad and become smart Alecs who do not listen to their parents and do not even respect them.
We can see this today. Spend any time with many young people around town and you will hear swearing, cursing each other and other bad behaviour. Our children are becoming young Barbarians in my view.
What is the solution? Part of the solution is to reintroduce what we know works and is right. So therefore my recommendation would be to reintroduce section 59 as it was, where a jury can decide if the force used was reasonable or not, in the relatively few cases where police prosecute parents. I would go further to reintroduce corporal punishment in schools.
Interestingly enough our society would become less violent. That is because once we reintroduce proper authority then teenagers and children will know their boundaries and respect them. So we will see less violence in schools and less violence in society in general.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Scott, are you just guessing? Or basing your hypothesis on one view from the Bible? Do you know that kids who are not smacked are more likely to be “young Barbarians” than any of:
- kids who have been smacked bit
- kids who have been smacked a lot
- kids who have been beaten
Is physical punishment the key factor? Or is it general parenting that is more important?
December 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Hi Pete. I am basing my opinion on the Bible which I believe to be authoritative and God’s revelation to mankind about how we should live. I have a radical trust and faith in God and believe that when we follow God’s Word then our society will prosper. When we depart from it, then our society begins to decline (as it is doing now).
I would agree that general parenting is more important than corporal punishment on its own. However corporal punishment enables parents and teachers to maintain their authority. It enables parents to teach good values and discipline because the children know that there is a boundary which they can’t cross. It enables teachers to maintain discipline so that they can actually teach something.
It is breathtaking to me how radical and destructive this whole idea is. Children can now say to their parents — you can’t touch me. Students can assault the teachers with impunity. Teachers cannot physically defend themselves because they know they will be charged with assault. There has to be a better way and there is.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:39 am
My kids didn’t need to be smacked, and certainly didn’t need it to learn respect and to grow into good adults.
My kids never said to me I couldn’t touch them – because we had established mutual respect from early on.
My kids never had corporal punishment at school and never assaulted a teacher.
My kids have never been in trouble with the law.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Well good for you Pete. However the trends of rising disrespect and lawlessness are obvious for all to see. Look there is a problem out there and all I am doing is offering what I believe to be a sensible solution. I base it on time-honoured principles and biblical revelation. It worked before and it will work again.
Anyway that’s it from me. I did agree with you on your post on Tiger Woods — somewhere around comment 2580. So I look forward to finding agreement with you again somewhere around comment 5000. In the meantime — Scott out.