S59 Review
The Nigel Latta et al review of how Police and CYFS are implementing the new Section 59 has been reported back to the Government. It is online here. Some extracts:
It makes 13 recommendations to improve information to parents etc.
What is very interesting is the detailed responses to some of the cases that have been in the media.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Nigel Latta, Section 59, smacking
December 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
The recommendations headings: ‘Greater transparency’, ‘Better support for parents’, and ‘Improved monitoring’
… but nothing about that little problem of 100′s of thousands of good parents being criminalised as a result of a law that is doing nothing to address the real cause of child abuse.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Why is it the a dog can be trained without hitting it but moronic parents cannot raise children unless they are permitted to belt them?
[DPF: 20 demerits for trolling]
December 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Now there’s a surprise. I can see why Key kept Broad on.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
MNIJ
“Why is it the a dog can be trained without hitting it but moronic parents cannot raise children unless they are permitted to belt them?”
Because Jack, your average puppy is more intelligent than a two year old who is in the midst of a tantrum.
That same puppy will not sit in the middle of the aisle in the supermarket and scream because it does not get it’s way, that same puppy will not act up on a long haul flight because it is bored. When I am faced with screaming brats on a flght or in the supermarket I cannot help but praise the parent who gives their child a light smack. The parents who stand there and try and reason with the child, or worst of all ignore it, are the ones who deserve the belt across the arse.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
It’s not ideal but not causing any problems – and unlikely to, any cases involving it are going to be more scrutinised by the police than anything else to ensure they get it right.
It would be really good to move on from S59 now.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I suspect moronic parents cannot effectively raise children regardless of what the law permits or prohibits..
December 7th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Special Olympic NZ will be after you for calling them moronic. They are people exhibiting behavioural problems consequent from significantly impaired cognitive functioning.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
How is MyNameIsJack trolling? Look at getstaffed with his tired unfounded scaremongering about “criminalising good parents”. I never understood why fundamentalist Christians are so obsessed with hitting their kids!
Agree with Pete George. As the old Otago University ad said: “GET OVER IT!”
December 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
From the Family First website:
HERE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN REPORTED, PROSECUTED, INVESTIGATED AS A RESULT OF THE ANTI-SMACKING LAW
[Tally table for the period 17/3/2007 to 22/06/2009: 1155 investigations, 361 prosecutions, and 309 or 319 Warnings, depending on which set of totals you add up
]
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Smacking_Cases
Meanwhile, according to page 8 of Latta et. al, a *sensible* review found 12 cases of inappropriate investigations or prosecutions.
Family First: We Quelle Hysteria so you don’t have to.
(And I make these comments as someone who has been inappropriately investigated by CYFS on a different matter, therefore I have fairly low opinions of CYFS staff and operations, and I thank my lucky stars they have the Police to do the *proper* investigating for them!)
December 7th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
JK is ramming this PoS law down our throats with BS time-wasting reports and stall tactics that is more characteristic of other political persuasions.
The real issue is kept isolated from the masses by all the noise generated around whether one should or shouldn’t smack children, fueled by countless so-called “examples” from both sides of the fence.
The biggest issue for me – YOU TOOK AWAY MY INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY JOHN KEY YOU DOUCHEBAG!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU’LL DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! I AM FROM THE MAJORITY THAT PUT YOU WHERE YOU ARE!
December 7th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
One thing that is interesting is that CYFS working definition of abuse is different to the statutory definition in the legislation. One says “inflicted injury”, the other says ” harm”. No wonder CYFS staff don’t know whether a smack is abuse.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
How is sound logic tired unfounded scaremongering? If you shoplift you commit a criminal offence irrespective of whether or not you’re are prosectured. Same for smacking. What’s difficult to understand about that?
December 7th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Oh.
My.
God.
I am sick of people who refer to ‘smacking’ as ‘hitting’. It isn’t
SMACKING IS NOT HITTING
SMACKING IS NOT HITTING
SMACKING IS NOT HITTING
Let me ask you this: is it OK to smack a newborn baby? No?
And yet doctors used to smack newborns upon delivery to get them to cry and so to breathe. I am sure no one would call that abuse or refer to it as ‘hitting’. It’s the same with applying discipline to a child that needs it – they will suffer a trifling discomfort and that is it.
Latta is only one child psychologist.
The wishes of 87% of the country are still being ignored.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
^^^ Interesting. Your definitions of “smacking” and “hitting” please.
And a doctor smacking a newborn to induce breathing is not equal to you or I smacking for discipline. FFS.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Hitting is – I pop you in the mouth because you took too long getting me another beer.
Smacking is – an openhanded whack on the bum or hand because you swore at your mother.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
The unstated agenda with the s59 repeal is to have as many parents as possible in a position where they have broken the law, thereby providing the state with a mandate to intervene more aggressively in the raising of children.
Sweden, the country that renders Kiwi socialists weak at the knees, was one of the first cabs off the rank in terms of anti-smacking, and boasted a huge 1 child in 50 being in state care back in 1999. We had 1 in 200 last year. My guess is that this ratio is worsening in both countries.
We should reject the notion that this is the right path to go down. Is the solution more state intervention… or better parenting? I think the latter.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
FFS, this is supposed to be about the S59 review, not smacking regurgitated yet again.
getstaffed, do you have a conspiracy theory for everything you disagree with?
December 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Pete – Perhaps I’m wise enough not to be satisfied with ‘surface features’ of a discussion. Fair enough re the thread focus though. I reiterate my comment that the review does not address the important issue of criminalisation of good parents, which I note attracts -ve karma, but not reasoned debate.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
RRM, well what is your definition of hitting?
I’m sure for you it includes any physical force used against a child for any reason. The distinction between starting a newborn breathing and smacking for discipline makes no difference in that case. In both cases a child is being smacked to help it.
How does smacking a child for discipline help it, I hear you ask? I know a few people who say they were right little b*astards when they were kids and if not for a whack on the bum now and then would have grown up to be criminal. So really you are abusing the child NOT to smack if it needs it. You are denying them a future of being well-rounded stand-up citizens, and perhaps because you were afraid to administer a transitory and trifling smack on the bottom.
We have more and more violence from kids these days – just recently two 14 year old girls attacked an old man (I think they killed him too). I consider at least part of the cause to be lack of discipline by parents.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I didn’t read any of the recommendations in the report but I did skip forwards and read most of the case studies – they are really interesting, especially as they highlight the way the media can sensationalize a case by putting emphasis on just one aspect of it.
I’m not saying that CYFs don’t get it wrong sometimes but reading through these cases there’s a theme of talking to parents, offering them services and advice, and exercising discretion when working with the Police about whether or not to press charges.
Have a read – it’s quite enlightening.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Smacking IS hitting ….. BUT ….. it is hitting for a legitimate purpose.
If I hit you hard in pushing you out of the way of a dick-headed cyclist once again illegally riding along the footpath and in the process save you from being run into you’ve been hit but no one (in their right mind) would complain about the action.
The same with smacking.
A good firm belt on the arse (fuck this “light tap” business) to get through to a toddler that running out into the road is a bad idea makes more sense than letting the little bastard learn from experience that being hit by cars hurts.
Oh, and MNIJ, I’ve never yet trained a dog without using the same technique.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
God I am sick of people arguing that smacking is not hitting. It can mean all sorts of things, like most words, and of course the smacker will always argue their effort was only mild. But we have all heard such usages as a car smacking into a lamp post, and somebody getting a smack in the mouth. Neither of such is remotely about a kindly correction.
One thing this whole issue has taught me, is to never believe a church goer again. They will twist any truth to suit their beliefs.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
So if the new law is not having any effect, why was it ever passed in the first place?
December 7th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way. The fact is when people – yes you and I included – feel strongly about something we will build a case for it. Is this only ‘twisting facts’ when other people do it, but never when you do?
BTW, still waiting for a sensible contribution outlining why the review made no mention of the criminalisation of good parents. Surely this is a major failing, that and the fact that absence of prosecutions is still being highlighted as evidence of the repeal’s success.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Wow
So there is no problem? There are not hundreds of ordinary parents incarcerated for only trying to discipline their children in a loving and caring way?
So the referendum was, well, a waste of time? A smack as part of good parental correction is actually not a criminal offence in New Zealand?
So much angst and such a little problem.
Good on you DPF for being neutral on the issue and good on John Key (this is the first and last time I think I will say this) for refusing to get spooked on the issue.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Chris2 – So if the new law is not having any effect, why was it ever passed in the first place?
So that the government can claim that they made an effort at reducing child abuse in NZ (won’t work though) without having to venture into the political minefield of dealing with the REAL cause.
PS – the previous post was two different people, not a schizo
December 7th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
He’s got his hands on just about everything as he sees fit. A direct line for parents to check with the ruler himself Mr. Key to see if they are guilty or not….
December 7th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
13 recommendations – more state interference in parents’ lives.
More policies for social workers to follow = more cost to the state and more bureaucracy.
More policies for police officers to follow = more cost to the state, more bureaucracy and more paperwork for cops sitting on their arses instead of catching crooks.
Oh look, a parent support helpline should be set up. Next will be a state agency.
Bad regulations = more cost, cops doing paperwork and more bureaucracy.
For what? There was nothing broken to fix in the first place.
That’s New Zealand for you. Politicians who don’t do what’s right – they do simply what’s popular at a huge cost to all of us.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
John Key says
“Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide.” NZ HERALD 7 Dec 2009.
So, I can decide then can I John?
But the Law states, ‘Nothing …… justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction’
So who do I believe ,John Key or the Law?
What a relief re the smacking issue
As long as John Key remains PM,&
Celebrity psychologist Nigel Latta remains on a review team ,&
Police Guidelines don’t change
& FF & Other associated groups keep the pressure on
Then the law as its written wont be enforced.
Totally satisfactory
Remember folks “Laws last longer than promises”
December 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I think the editor of the press summed it up:
“Legal proceedings are costly and intrusive for a family; the cause of non-violent rearing is not advanced by a stream of parents being hauled into court.
The police realise this, and their administration of the legislation has been exemplary. They have initiated legal proceedings only for gross violations of the law and talked through other instances.
It is the fact that the law frowns on smacking that will encourage parents to rethink and change their behaviour towards their children such is the influence of formal sanctions in altering humans’ attitudes.
Therefore, a decade from now if section 59 remains on the statute books New Zealand parenting is likely to be dominated less by physical coercion and more by smart nurturing.
”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2779529/Editorial-Vote-a-fiasco
but this (of course) means people are being officially told how to bring up their kids and that means the state comes down on the side of the anti smackers (so it is a win for that particular set of ideas). On the other hand people may ignore the law and the police may just reflect the norms of society.
Next on the agenda > Foreshore and seabed “under due consideration as to our confidence and supply agreement with the maori party we have decided to vest the foreshore and seabed into the control and management of tangatawhenu (this will not apply to Success Way (Omaha) or Wiaheke Island or anywhere Act members have beach front” Objectors will be referred to the Race relations Conciliator for a treaty Indoctrination .
December 7th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Helen Clark set terms of reference into an investigation regarding Philip Fields. The result came as no surprise.
John Key set the terms of reference on this farce of a review. Why waste the money? It did not address the issue that concerns many if not the majority of good parents. That is if a parent smacks a naughty toddler or a child a bit older on the bum for purpose of correction that parent is committing criminal offence.
Schools are informing young children of this. Children are being encouraged to dob in their parents. What country was well known for that?
This report fails to address this important issue.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
@HJ you’re a fool. I’m not sure the police realise that at all. They are tiptoeing around this law right now, but just you wait a while and there will be no common sense.
Here’s a case to prove that many cops have no commonsense, and have no hesitation about hauling overwhelmingly innocent people to court. The cops prefer to let the jury decide (regardless of costly legal proceedings and family intrusion).
http://www.3news.co.nz/TVShows/Sunrise/Story/tabid/1166/articleID/97113/cat/214/Default.aspx
SO, a scumbag tries to rob your shop, stabs you with a knife, and you whack him back with a hockey stick and the police charge YOU!!??
If there is any doubt that police will not eventually abuse the s59 laws, then this is a perfect example to prove you wrong.
Police abuse laws. Look at british police invoking anti terrorism laws against Icelandic banks. Imagine if we had such laws in nz, and we used terrorism laws to freeze private companies bank accounts.
LAWS GET ABUSED. BAD LAWS PROVIDE MORE POTENTIAL FOR SERIOUS ABUSE.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Parents are another soft target for the police when they should be crushing the gangs that are destroying our kids with P, and the burglars and the graffiti vandals. (Not to mention the buried inquiry into the Brash email thefts, of course.) Domestics, parents smacking kids, racial problem hotlines… next the the cops will be policing gender discrimination.
The Colonel at 4.58 again has layed his guns accurately:
Helen Clark’s appointee Broad and Peter Hughes, CEO of the ministry of social development, made up two-thirds of the review groupt. Latta’s written some interesting books and has developed into an amusing TV entertainer, but was he on this group just to be the celebrity-spokesman-front man for Broad and Hughes?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:54 am
The whole socialist economic system supports a professional infrastructure at the expense of children, their parents, and families. There is no doubt the discretion is based on an economic outcome to determine profit and redirection of tax payer money away from non paying clients to lawyers, psychologists, social workers, and caregivers.
Those are the only people who are pushing this law. They have come out to dictate the public on legal issues around the family, but who the hell voted them in?
Any common habit can be targeted for political and economic purpose. Again that makes the police judge, jury, and collection agencies.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:59 am
If a person smalcks their child for the purposes of correction they are a criminal according tho this law. It doesn’t matter if the anyone knows about it, or if the police investigate and decide not to prosecute. That is what criminalising parents means. I keep saying, if the burglar who broke into John Key’s home and nicked his wife’s jewellery was not caught he still broke the law and is still a criminal. Same with this law. Smack and you are a criminal whether you are investigated or not.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:27 am
It sounds as if many of the people in this thread haven’t actually read the report, and Latta’s case notes are particularly interesting for those of you who might have taken Family First’s comments at face value…
Wellington, Dec 7 NZPA – As part of the review clinical psychologist Nigel Latta looked at 12 cases out of a number of complaints from Family First New Zealand that parents had been inappropriately investigated or prosecuted.
Here are some of those cases:-
* Father charged for shoulder shake of defiant daughter refusing to get out of bed.
What was reported by Family First: Father had been having problems with 15-year-old girl stealing money, sneaking out and coming home late. One morning after coming home at 4am shouting match took place when father tried to wake her up at 6am. Father shook her, she alleged father punched her at least three times. No medical treatment was needed, but father was taken away in handcuffs and eventually convicted and discharged on condition of counselling.
Agency information: Police called by daughter who accused father of punching her. Police attended and took father to station. CYF investigation identified breakdown in relationships within the family and the daughter was seriously challenging her parents.
Parents did not want support and said they would handle the situation by laying down clear boundaries. CYF took no further action, but advised daughter on what action to take if there was another incident.
Father was dealt with by the courts.
* Step-father charged for smacks
What was reported by Family First: A mother and step-father were having problems with 14-year-old and secretive behaviour with boyfriend. When the step-father tried to confiscate ring, she started to scratch and he had to physically restrain her and gave her three smacks on the bottom. Daughter complained to teacher she had been put in a headlock, tied to a post with a dog lead and hit with an electric fence pole. Step-father was advised to plead guilty to smacks and other charges were dropped.
Agency information: Police received complaint that 14-year-old had been beaten up by step-father, put in a strangle hold and tied up with a dog lead. Step-father admitted attempting to tie girl up and hitting her on the bottom. Step-father charged with assault and discharged without conviction.
CYF investigation identified significant concerns about the safety of the girl and she was removed from her mother’s and step-father’s care.
* Grandfather charged and convicted for tipping child out of a chair to get a “move on”.
What was reported by Family First: A grandfather was convicted of assault after tipping his grandson out of a bean bag after the 11-year-old refused to turn the TV down. The boy called 111 and despite protestations from the grandson and grandmother the grandfather was arrested and held in cells for two nights. The man was advised to plead guilty to avoid cost and hassle by lawyer.
Agency information: Police called over alleged assault by grandfather after he acted aggressively and tipped boy off chair causing him to heavily strike his head on a metal pole.
It was also alleged that the grandparents argued and he hit her with a pair of trousers. The grandmother feared for her safety and that of her grandchild.
The grandfather was removed from house and charged with assault and convicted.
CYF said there had been previous involvement with the family, but there were no ongoing concerns for the boy’s safety.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Do you think his chances of getting another series of his comedy show have just improved? At the taxpayers’ expense of course.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:39 am
In this country we don’t make law by adminstrative fiat; only Parliament makes law or regulations with that effect. They ignorantly made it criminal to technically assault any child in the slightest way for corrective purposes because the UN did not like our then s.59. The previous test worked: no sound minded lawyer would attempt a s.59 defence without very good reason. The previous s.59 was a safety valve to prevent injustice as in many other statutes.
When politics meddles with law we have none. Nigel Latta’s assurances and the PM’s smile are irrelevant. Without law we we cannot have justice; feelgood leads to tyranny.
If the government does not understand the nature of law and it’s relationship to civil society they must be gone. The former Attorney General, whose job it was, to oversee his colleagues in such matters was a history teacher. The present one with legal qualifications has been silent in the midst of a party trampling on the constitution.
MMP has been a disaster allowing representation by the masses instead of selection by competence to govern.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Just as those who engaged in homosexual behaviour were criminals before the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Act. It just isn’t any good to say: “Look, this law is perfectly okay, because you haven’t been arrested.” Perhaps people would actually like to go about their private lives without constant fear of state surveillance and intrusion.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:21 am
“The law is working well.”
How many children has it saved? This is Keys bigest mistake and it will take him down. We just fired one PM for telling us what we think and we’re happy to do it again.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:41 am
The law is no worse than the old one, and under more scrutiny probably better.
Under the old law a parent could be arrested for hitting their child (presumably making any parent “a criminal”). They had a possible defense of reasonable force. The current version shifts things slightly towards the rights and protection of the child but otherwise there isn’t a lot of practical difference.
If the old law had systems in place to be scrutinised as much as the new one it would probably work as well as is happening now. But there seems little point in changing the law again, to achieve much the same result. And I think it is correct to have the law leaning slightly towards the more vulnerable child.
Good parents (unless they make a bad mistake) should never have to worry about this law, they surely should support trying to protect kids, and should support attempts to reduce even low level violence – whether it is physical or verbal or whatever.
This isn’t about saving x number of children – that is immeasurable anyway. Shouldn’t we be trying to encourage less violent parenting at all levels?
December 8th, 2009 at 8:42 am
True, but who will be vote for?
I’m stymied as to know who that would be for me. An old guy at work told me a couple of elections ago that one party is just as bad as the next; I didn’t believe him and just wanted to get Helen out. We got her out and things seemed better but I think the old guy was right: one party is just about as bad as the next – there isn’t a major party who isn’t politically correct and just wants what’s best for New Zealand.
Take the Dali Lama issue – it’s OK to meet him if you’re in the opposition party (as Key did when he was opposition) but if you’re in the NZ Govt it becomes a no-no (as Key has discovered) because of offending the Chinese with whom we now have a free trade agreement. In other words, being PM means you have to put all your personal convictions to the side? Should it mean that? I don’t think so. But it seems to be that if you’re the party in power (especially under MMP) it means doing ridiculous deals with parties (looking at you Maori Party) in order to get legislation passed.
I’m sure MMP wasn’t supposed to be that way, or, we didn’t think it was going to work that way. When we voted for it, we thought the little parties would keep the big ones honest, but it’s become the case that the big parties bribe the little ones and the little ones accept those bribes for concessions. “Honest” and “politics” are two words that don’t go together.
We need to get in something like the Swiss system if we want true democracy.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:47 am
If an issue like this was used to take a reasonable government down I don’t think we deserve better democracy.
If any politicians abuse a child safety issue to try and get more votes I don’t think they deserve respect – or votes.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am
The law still says it’s illegal for me to smack my children but this seems to be a sanction from the PM himself to ignore the law. Nice precedent…
December 8th, 2009 at 8:49 am
“The law still says it’s illegal for me to smack my children ”
How is that different to the old law?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am
It’s not.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Here’s a list of things we could criminalise, and have the PM direct discretion on prosecution
- Protest marches
- Citizens Initiated Referenda
- Homosexuality
- A ‘weapons free’ police force
- Triennial elections
Nuts.. right? Of course and, as KevOB observed, there’s the creepy prospect of our PM continuing the trend of directing our law enforcement activities for political gain. Totalitarianism for beginners.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:04 am
“How many children has it saved? ”
If you look at the cases that have been reviewed it is clear they are not isolated incidents, there are none where a child gets a one off smack and because it is “illegal” they call the police. They indicate more deep seated parenting/child behaviour problems where intervention may be prudent, or help for the parents to resolve the parenting problems they are having could be beneficial. This could actually help a few kids, and also a few parents.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Rakai George: “The law still says it’s illegal for me to smack my children but this seems to be a sanction from the PM himself to ignore the law. Nice precedent…”
“Nice precendent.” indeed! If Key was President of the USA his public advocacy of breaking the law would be impeachable being contrary to his oath of office. We cannot have law and have PMTV telling us how we can avoid being held to be subject to it by officers who have sworn a duty to enforce it. Does the PM’s oath of office not include that too? When are the politicians going to learn basic statecraft? Why hasn’t the attorney General intervened?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am
After all the debate and hysteria and money spent on this issue I’m left with the overwhelming feeling that it has all been a huge waste of resources. I only hope that somehow it does some good, since it’s cost millions of dollars and probably millions of hours of various peoples’ time. Money and time that could well have been targetted at education programmes for the families that are really at risk.
Meanwhile I continue to ignore it and do as I always have.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am
BEFORE a light smack could be claimed to be reasonable.
Change the law, at considerable expense given the process and time devoted to it, and NOW you can claim the same light smack may be excused because the Prime Minister in many media utterances says action will most likely not be taken.
So now no one is much clearer. Can a new Prime Minister when we get one, who may be more PC, in effect change this law by indicating a more restrained attitude to it.
What a whucking great waste of money, time and what a dent in respect for Law.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Fairly unwarranted demerits would be my opinion. A bit trolly but half the statements against the repeal are fairly unreasoned. And the cases put forward by “family first” (cough) are hardly great examples of parenting. There was only one I thought sounded like it was not handled that well, being the Grandparents one.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:08 am
except that is how assault has always worked apart from in respect of children. Currently if you played me in rugby when I tackled you that would be a ‘technical’ assault, but it is not prosecuted because of a discretion exercised. Further to make things even more tricky I understand that it is not clear cut whether one can even legally consent to an assault (according to my law lecturer anyway from back in the day), so the concept of relying on a discretion is not really that new for something like assault which is kind of different from things like free speech / sexual relations.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
wreck1080 (813) Vote:
Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
@HJ you’re a fool. I’m not sure the police realise that at all. They are tiptoeing around this law right now, but just you wait a while and there will be no common sense.
“On the other hand people may ignore the law and the police may just reflect the norms of society.”
I was thinking of prostitution prior to it being legal.
[from Press Editorial]
“It is the fact that the law frowns on smacking that will encourage parents to rethink and change their behaviour towards their children such is the influence of formal sanctions in altering humans’ attitudes”.
this expresses well why people oppose the law… that was my point. It is an abuse of power, unless you agree that smacking as commonly carried out is wrong (as Sue Bradford, Barnardoes etc do). “The fact that the law frowns”.. is like being yelled at, getting the bird (or whatever) from the state; it is pointing a gun at smackers (even though they won’t pull the trigger). There is an underlying ideological argument relating to causes of crime, violence Sue Bradford would see different underlying causes to most people.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am
KevOB at 9:13 am – If Key was President of the USA his public advocacy of breaking the law would be impeachable being contrary to his oath of office.
Have you not heard of GWB and his signing statements? He put his signature to ignoring many laws.
(I haven’t heard if Obama is doing the same)
December 8th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Not trying to hijack the topic, but here’s a post on the greenpeace facebook site that’s been left up for close to a day, and has attracted not a single condemnation. I’m close to leaving the left, into which i still broadly fit myself politically, as I can’t abide these hypocrises much longer. An anti-racist website that tolerates racism? Some peace there…
Ras Tinny: Copenhagen is like ‘negotiating’ how much rubbish your neighbor is going to be allowed throwing in your back yard. 30.000 people die every year from pollution cause by western countries. Untill you start killing 30.000 white devils a year in the West they won’t give a shit. Couloured people are much more in number on this earth yet produce only 20% of the greenhouse gasses. If each one kill a white devil we might rid this earth of this scourge. It is true whites have the most ungodly and deadly weapons but think about this: If whites dont murder us all with their deadly weapons they surely will wipe us all off the earth through climate change. You better die fighting…Each one kill one they are only 20%…
Words fail one. Really.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:31 am
As our law makers how can Executive Councillors, our ministers, be so pig ignorant of it? We require training and certification from plumbers but not others who can cause an even greater mess in our lives.
Executive Council Oath
“I, [name], being chosen and admitted of the Executive Council of New Zealand, swear that I will to the best of my judgement, at all times, when thereto required, freely give my counsel and advice to the Governor-General for the time being, for the good management of the affairs of New Zealand. That I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. So help me God.”
That is the oath of office which the PM and others take. Their only duty is to advise then keep their mouths shut about how they talked about it! They have no accountablility for what they do, except that their conduct has to meet existing law. They have no requirement to maintain law and not subvert it.
If they have this uncanny belief in their own right of rulership I expect to see yet worse than the present s.59 debacle. Don’t let them loose near tax law.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I have a friend who has been charged with common assault for pushing his daughter.
She is 18 and still at school.
It occurred on a Saturday night. She had returned home at 4am Saturday morning after a Friday night out with friends and got out of bed at 1pm Saturday afternoon. There was no good afternoons or other small talk from the daughter just “fix my car dad, it’s got a flat tyre.”
Dad did fix the tyre on Saturday afternoon but was annoyed when the daughter insisted that she use mum’s car on Saturday night.
Mum and dad were watching a movie at 7.30pm when the daughter made such insistence which made dad push his daughter to stop the screaming match which had ensued between mum and daughter.
The daughter rang 111, the police arrived within 5 mins, dad admitted pushing his daughter and he was taken to the station, processed and charged with common assault .
Dad was not allowed to return home until his court appearance the following wed. He stayed with me during this time.
He is a loving father and does everything possible for his children and is deeply saddened by this event.
Until such an event happens to you or someone close to you, you don’t realise how disruptive, costly and life changing it is to the household just because an 18 year old daughter believes she can do anything she wants and has the law behind her to do so.
You would think a free upbringing, free schooling, free meals, free car, free clothes, free everything would command a bit of respect for the providers, but it doesn’t.
Instead the father is charged and the household pays!
December 8th, 2009 at 10:45 am
“If Key was President of the USA his public advocacy of breaking the law would be impeachable being contrary to his oath of office. We cannot have law and have PMTV telling us how we can avoid being held to be subject to it by officers who have sworn a duty to enforce it.”
KevOB, it sounds like you haven’t read the legislation either. The amendment to Section 59 – the version of the law that is IN USE TODAY – includes the following:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
“(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
“(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
“(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
“(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
There’s nothing to impeach Key over, because smacking hasn’t been outlawed. What has been changed is whether or not correction can be used as a legal defense when faced with charges of assault.
I’m really amazed how many people here seem to be interested in politics but entirely ignorant of policy.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Pinkgina
Pushing is assault. But there is detail missing. i’d have no sympathy if he pushed her down the stairs for instance. You make it sound like a mild shove. Was it???
Me, I’d take the car off her, remove her credit card and pocket money. See how she liked that.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
CC,
Obviously i wasn’t there, but the father insists it was just a shove.
He just wanted a peaceful night watching a movie and not a slanging match. Apparantly the daughter’s car was fine but mum’s is better (looking)
December 8th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Um… you mean the wishes of 87% of those who bothered responding to the referendum.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:10 am
FWIW, stuff has a good story on some of the example provided by Family First:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3135954/Family-First-often-not-given-full-story-from-parents-Latta
Seems to me that Family First are just desperately trying to find examples and failing miserably.
Good on Key and Latta for not jumping on the populist bandwagon and maintaining a rational and unbiased approach.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Well if we listen to the people and elect a government on the basis of who bothers to turn up, why shouldn’t we do the same with CIR’s? More people ‘bothered to respond’ the the CIR than the winning governments of the last 5 elections.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:22 am
underscore_b “There’s nothing to impeach Key over, because smacking hasn’t been outlawed.”
Contrary to the part of Section 59 you quoted, underscore_b, the portion Key is talking about says ” (2) Nothing in subsection 910 or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
PM: It’s okay to give light smacks
NZ Herald
4:00 AM Tuesday Dec 8, 2009
Prime Minister John Key says a new review gives parents the go-ahead to lightly smack their children without the fear they will be investigated and prosecuted for doing so.
The only part to be feared is for “correction”, which can therefore only be what Key refers to. No Prime Minister should be in the position of passing a law and then saying do not follow it. That is just plain fucking stupid.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Seems to me that Family First are just desperately trying to find examples and failing miserably.
Did you see the bit in the title which said “Family-First-often-not-given-full-story-from-parents-Latta”? Doesn’t that indicate something else?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Though i must add when what his face says “Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie rejected any suggestion it had been misled.”…seems like he was, really.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Show me the significant drop in child abuse stats.
Aside from pissing off 85% of voters what exactly does this law do please.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
@ Stephen
Indeed, but Family First isn’t looking too closely into the cases, is it?
Shouldn’t they make sure that they have the story right before proclaiming it to be a case where the law is not working?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:41 am
87% of those who voted in the referendum did not support “a smack as part of good parental discipline should be a criminal offence”.
They did not vote on whether they are pissed off with this law or not. It is obvious that some used the referendum to express pissed offedness, but how many hasn’t been measured.
It would be interesting to know how many are pissed off with the law now, how many accept it grudgingly, and how many accept it entirely.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:43 am
PinkGina
Whilst I do feel sympathy for your friend you can’t push an 18 year old, you just cant and really isn’t an age that this debate is focussed on.
I do have true sympathy for him, as everyone knows how fricken crazy teenagers can be, but you can’t do it.
In saying that not being allowed in his house till that date when clearly he is not a threat is not positive either.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Yvette
“justifies the use of force”
So you thinking smacking is use of force?
Hmm, but others here are saying that it isnt. Could you guys make up your mind?
You cant saying smacking is not force and then on the other hand (pun intended) say that smacking is caught by the existing law which bans use of force.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
The problem Family First have here is that they have an obvious aim, to discredit S59, so their views cannot be seen as impartial. Parents who complain via Family First must know they are using someone likely to lean towards advocating for them and against S59.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:51 am
But the police have a very difficult judgement to make here. They are listening to both sides of the story – 18 year old’s can overstate and over dramatise, but parents who do something wrong can also understate their involvement. Presumably the police are basing their judgement on what risk the daughter (and possibly the mother) are claiming. And if the police let someone go back into a family situation and there is further assaults they would be severely criticised.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Indeed, but Family First isn’t looking too closely into the cases, is it?
Shouldn’t they make sure that they have the story right before proclaiming it to be a case where the law is not working?
I wouldn’t be too surprised if they were a bit slack, but they didn’t take everything at face value:
It had not relied simply on what prosecuted parents told it, but in some cases had provided the police statement of facts, and sentencing notes.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Captain Crab – “justifies the use of force. So you thinking smacking is use of force?”
My apparent use of the word force was actually in quoting the law – in fact I misquoted, there being a typo, but it does read -
” (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
Force appears to not be defined as far as I can see in relation to this section
December 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
i am sure its been mentioned, but he misses the point.
its not about how the law is working, etc.
its the fact the public majority don’t want the law, its a democracy.
the government is out of control, justifying its size with shit like this,
while the economy is shit and no one wants to make those hard decisions.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Murray asked… “…Aside from pissing off 85% of voters what exactly does this law do please…”
Not much, except a minor clean up of the crimes act to remove a provision for an archaic defense. Which is what it was always going to be all along, until the religious right used it as a stalking horse to ignite a culture war.
Once that happened, it was never about a minor law change in a private members bill. Instead, the likes of McCroskie and his dupes like Colin Craig attempted to turn it into an attempt by Biblical literalists to start relitigating the enlightenment.
McCroskie and the rest of his disingenuous social concervative cronies:
a) lost
and
b) are now exposed as liars.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I have a friend who has been charged with common assault for pushing his daughter.
From the description you’ve given it sounds like a very standard family violence response from the police — the same as if his wife or partner had made the complaint. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with smacking.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Yvette
“Force appears to not be defined as far as I can see in relation to this section”
The limitations of force is in the Act though
“Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
“(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
“(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
“(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
“(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”
If you think this is banning smacking then you must think that smacking is unreasonable force.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
^^^ What Eszett and others are saying.
Reading the case summaries in Appendix 3, it’s amazing how many of the parents claim either “nothing at all” or else “perfectly reasonable smacking” on the Family First website.
But then the Police/CYFS information reveals that the “smacks” were in fact assaults with sticks, metal spoons, hoses, phone books, belt buckles, wooden spoon to the face, or punches to the head etc. Nice.
“CYFS picked on me for nothing more than a light smack”…. yeah right. Family First website = BS.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I really hate that Schopenhauer quote, it misses out that fact that all lies also pass through those first two stages.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
pinkgina – i hope the 18 yr old is now living somewhere else and fending for herself.
what kind of a bitch calls the police on her parents? 18 isnt a child. she would be gone from my house.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Re Russell Brown at 12.22…
You might have been on the civilised side in the “It’s not alright” campaign Russell, but the intrusion of the state between parents and children is more complicated and can be sinister as well as protective.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Yeah Dime from mine too.
I realise this example is not a smacking matter but to see this family go through such heartache is truely heartbreaking.
Apparently no written statement has been made by the daughter so for all you legal minds out there what happens at the next court appearance, if no written evidence is produced?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Yvette,
I’m not trying to be rude, but can you rephrase your comment? I’m not quite sure what you mean about fearing correction; the point of the legislation is that if the incident is serious enough to go to court, correction isn’t a good enough excuse. Consider for a moment how overworked and understaffed CYPFS and the police are and you’ll quickly realise that they don’t get involved unless they’ve been given a damned good reason.
Murray,
Like I’ve said to Yvette, the point of the legislation is not to reduce child abuse – that’s hopefully a long-term side-effect, and it may take a decade or so before we start seeing the results. The immediate purpose of the legislation is to remove a legal loophole for abusers who fight the charges on grounds of “teaching them a lesson”. This has been a successful defence on multiple occasions. As John Hancock writes:
“The section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house …. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children.”
The full text of his case summaries can be read here, should you be interested: http://www.acya.org.nz/site_resources/library/Documents/Reports_to_UN/S59_report_UNCROC_28Aug2003.rtf
December 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Captain Crab
I actually didn’t say I was in favour of smacking or not
‘underscore_b’ had quoted clauses (a) to (d), as you do, and he said there was “nothing to impeach Key over” Preventive force is okay.
I was just pointing out part (2) which says force may not be used in any circumstance which is corrective, as opposed to prevention
You say “The limitations of force is in the Act though” and quote parts, but they don’t, as far as I see, actually define force in any way, and I can’t see any applicable definition relating to childcare anywhere else in the bill.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Murray (4036) Vote: 7 4 Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 8:21 am
“The law is working well.”
How many children has it saved?
You may well ask the same question about our laws on murder, they don’t seem to work, but I don’t see you screaming for them to be repealled.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
John Key only has one principle – that is to stay in power.
He does not care personally much one way or the other about this legislation. His position is based purely on political expediency. He has flip-flopped on this issue like other issues.
He has worked out that only a small number of voters will vote mainly on this issue. If he keeps the law as it is the only thing those strongly opposed to the law can do is vote ACT or not vote. An ACT will not harm National. If he changes the law the fanatical anti-smackers may vote Labour or the Greens.
The only thing that would change Key’s mind is if ACT was polling very high close to the election. The Nats want ACT to be dependant on Epson and bring 4 or 5 extra MPs to Parliament. At the moment National and Labour are in basic agreement on the anti-smacking legislation and the ETS although Labour would like a higher amount going overseas.
The only way we will see a change is with a strong ACT presence in the next Parliament.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
And not infrequently the third.
Schopenhauer was a miserable old fuck who hated the world for not realising how right he was. This is only forgivable because he was, in fact, right.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:55 pm,
Indeed.
To get lies “accepted as being self-evident” usually involves brainwashing and the continual restating of the lie. The bigger the lie, and the more it is parroted as ‘truth’, the quicker the public acceptance.
Examples would be Hitler’s policies regarding the Jews, and more currently the AGW lie as fact and therefore scientific ‘truth’.
I might add; all the above involve someone losing their freedoms. This is ALWAYS the case when lies become the commonly accepted version of fact/truth.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
The association of Iraq with 9/11. The necessity of government. “National security”. Capitalist property rights. “Free will”. Necessity of a five-day working week.
Well, who can argue with common sense?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Kris K (1136) Vote: 0 0 Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:55 pm,
And not infrequently the third.
Indeed.
To get lies “accepted as being self-evident” usually involves brainwashing and the continual restating of the lie. The bigger the lie, and the more it is parroted as ‘truth’, the quicker the public acceptance.
“We hold these truths to be self evident …” where have I read these words before?
The continual restating of the lie sounds far more like the indoctrination of religion. Children are taught to parrot the lie before their critical thinking skills have developed, thus ensuring that religion perpetuates itself and steals the freedom of thought from far too many of our fellow Humans.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
So… you make shit up?
December 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
PinkGina (71) Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 10:34 am
She’s 18 so she’s an adult, her kit and schedule is her responsibility, not theirs.
Kick her out if she can’t take no for an answer and abuses the owners.
they have clearly spoiled her.
She wouldn’t be in my house and I’ve told mine that already for when they are 18.
While you live here we are king of the hill and you abide by our rules.
want your own go live somewhere else with your money.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Labour governed NZ when s59 was repealed.
The New Zealand Labour Party of is a member of Socialist International.
Karl Marx – the founder of modern socialism said “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions.”
So, no…not making shit up.
Also, while I’m quoting Marx, he also said: “”Catch a man a fish and you can sell it to him. Teach a man to fish, and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”. Sums up the dependency-creating welfare of the left.