Kiwiblog

John Roughan’s column on the smacking referendum is one I have to respond to:

There is something very creepy about this smacking referendum now arriving in the mail. What exactly do the citizens behind this initiative, men like Bob McCoskrie, mean by “good parental correction”?

Well for me it is being able to legally give your child a light smack on the hand or behind if they misbehave. Something probably 90% of parents have done – s0 how is that creepy?

Their publicity pretends they mean nothing more than the smack that an anxious or annoyed parent might use to stop or prevent dangerous or offensive behaviour. But that can’t be all they want because the law now expressly permits the use of parental force for exactly those purposes.

To prevent disruptive behaviour yes, but not to correct it. And that distinction is silly personally.

To cite one example. If you have told your child not to touch something, then it is legal to give them a smack on the hand if you are quick enough to do it as they try to touch it. That is preventing disruptive behaviour.

But if they have been fast enough to do it, it is illegal to them smack them on the hand a few second later as correction.

Delayed, systematic parental correction is the old-fashioned hiding. It was often called a “good hiding”.

That is what the recent amendment to the Crimes Act has criminalised. That, I suspect, is the “good parental correction” we are being asked to endorse in this referendum.

This is such a red herring. Almost everyone I know who does not like the current law, says they think the Borrows amendment would be a good outcome, rather than go back to the old law. The Borrows amendment would define “reasonable force” massively below a “good hiding”. It would exclude any use of an implement, anything that causes bruising, in fact anything where the effect is beyond trifling and transitory. And it would allow it for correctional purposes, as well as the other stuff such as preventing disruption etc.

Here is what many people do not know. The current law does not define what is reasonable for the purposes of preventing disruption. It does not rule out a whack in the head. If your child is screaming abuse at you, you could punch them to the ground and potentially claim that was reasonable force to prevent or stop the disruption. You could hit them with an implement and argue reasonable force.

You see the Bradford law did not change the definition of reasonable force from the old law – despite all the horror stories told. All it did was say you can no longer use reasonable force for correction, but can for preventing disruptive behaviour etc.

The Borrows amendment would provide far greater safeguard, as it would set the definition of reasonable force as low as possible and apply it to all situations.

Those who initiated the referendum know what the new law says. They know it permits reasonable force for all the preventive situations they are fond of citing.

They pretend it does not because they could not attract majority support for the restoration of the right to flog children. Don’t be deceived by them. Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Absolutely.

I think it is sad when invents motives for those you disagree with, rather than rationally debate the issue.

My challenge to John R would be to look closely at the Borrows amendment and then explain how this would be inferior to the current law.

I was interested to read in the Herald:

Nineteen years after physical punishment was banned in schools, a sampling of children suggests that while most want the ban, there is still some support for smacking as a form of discipline.

The reason I was interested is because my first ever poll was as a 17 year old at Rongotai College. I chaired the Student Council and we surveyed around 800 students (4th formers and up) on whether or not they wanted the school to continue with corporal punishment. So yes I was attracted to polling at an early age.

This was in 1985 and off memory 56% of students voted that they wanted corporal punishment to continue. The rationale was quite simple. They would rather have two strokes of the cane than an hour after school in detention.

We presented the results to the School Board and they were horrified that most students wanted to continue with corporal punishment, as they were seeking to end it. So they decided not to publish the results.

This then resulted not only in my first poll, but my first leak. I rang up the Evening Post and asked to speak to the Education reporter. And to my amazement it was a front page or page three story. I recall some board members wondering how the results got to the newspaper, and they were blaming each other. No one thought it might have been the 17 year old

Anyway back to this story:

Ten out of 17 Year 7 pupils at Rangeview Intermediate in Te Atatu said they would vote no in the referendum which says: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

Most kids have a lot of common sense.

Yet 14 of the 17 children still report having been smacked and, despite the official doctrine of non-violence at school, most believe their parents were right to smack them.

Again this shows how silly the law is.

The Paul Homes interview on Q&A was fascinating. Holmes was at his most hostile. He used every argument and language of those who support the anti-smacking law. He denigrated his guests as supporting violence, yet Cheryl Savil especially just sat there calmly and refused to allow Holmes to misrepresent her.

The video and transcript are here.  I recommend them as good watching:

Cheryl you are a Mum two kids, how old are the kids.

CHERYL Ten and twelve.

PAUL  And do you smack them?

So immediately tries to personalise it, but gets a calm response.

CHERYL SAVILL I have smacked them in the past, and I found it effective when they were younger?

PAUL How often would you have smacked them?

CHERYL  Actually it differed between the two children, they’re quite different little characters, and one of them is quite a strong willed character and it’s interesting to point out that discipline is on the things and correcting a child is when we’ve used smacking, so when it’s you know you’re not to touch something and they’ve gone to touch it, well I have one of them that would actually eyeball me and be quite defiant in her behaviour so smacking was effective, a little light smack on the hand.

Something hundreds and thousands of parents may have done.

PAUL So why are you so passionate about the right to use physical violence against children?

And then we get the loaded language.

CHERYL Well I don’t think it’s a right, the terminology there, the right to use physical violence.  Smacking is one of the things that parents can use as a technique to help discipline their children.

The calm response.

PAUL But why do we want to allow violence against children, I mean if an adult smacks, let’s use the word smack, if an adult smacks another adult it’s considered unacceptable, in fact it’s probably criminal, why should it be acceptable for a big person to assault or to smack a little child?

Here he repeast the pejorative term violence. Appears to concede and call it smacking. And then goes for anothe pejorative word – assault.

It is the equivalent of calling an unwanted kiss on the cheek, a sexual assault or violation.

CHERYL Well it’s quite a different relationship between a parent and their child than between adults.  So a parent’s responsibility is to raise their child to become a responsible loving productive member of society, and that’s what I think is the issue here, the parenting role is very different to the role that we have as adults in relationship to each other.

And another calm rational response.

PAUL What did you use, a wooden spoon or the hearth brush or what?

Another attempt to attack the mother personally. he could have asked if she smacked with a bare hand or with an implement

CHERYL  No I used a smack on the hand like that, or a smack on the bottom.  When you actually show the footage often you’ll see a parent grabbing the child by the arm and whack whack whack whack and I don’t agree with that I think that’s going too far.  So I need to really clarify that.

And another calm response, clearly saying what she finds acceptable and unacceptable.

BOB McCROSKIE 
 Well can I just clarify that, if you smack a child as they’re about to touch that’s preventing bad behaviour, but if they do it, if they do something naughty, and then you say you’re not to do that again I’m going to give you a smack don’t do that again, that is correction, that is illegal, and this is the minefield that parents are going through that you can smack to prevent that behaviour but not to correct.

McCroskie correctly points out the current law.

PAUL Nobody’s going through a minefield Bob.

The response being an unsupported assertion. And he is meant to be the neutral interviewer.

PAUL Parents are very calm, can I suggest to you everyone agrees, the Police, the government, both major parties, Bernardoes, Plunket, everyone agrees….

Paul think the lobby groups and the MPs represent everyone. Did he not wonder about why 300,000 people signed a petition, why it was cited as a factor in Labour’s loss, or why polls show 80%+ oppose the law. And he has the gumption to claim everyone agrees.

CHERYL I actually think it’s quite interesting that there has been this move away from smacking or from actual violence which we don’t agree with, you know anger in action.

PAUL Smacking, hitting, what’s the difference Cheryl?

Back to the language war.

CHERYL  Well a big difference, you know there is a seriously big difference, if a child gets bruised that’s too far.

And a calm response again

BOB  Same with time out Paul, there’s appropriate time out, but locking your kid in a dark room for three hours is child abuse.

I thought this was a very apt analogy. Any disciplinary method can become abusive. There is a difference between a light smack and a violent thrashing just as there is a difference between a time out and imprisonment.

PAUL What is your smacking history Mr McCroskie?

BOB  I was smacked, and it did me the world of good.  There was nothing wrong with it.

And again Holmes tries to personalise it, rather than debate the issues.

PAUL Well it was a simpler world perhaps, but go back to a situation that obtained before we amended section 59, kids in New Zealand were the only kids not protected from physical violence.  They did not have the same protections afforded to adults and animals.

BOB Yes they did, they were protected because the smack had to be reasonable and for the purpose of correction within the parent child relationship, so kids were protected from violence, if a parent went too far they were prosecuted.

PAUL And they got off Bob.

BOB One or two got off, there were a couple of exceptions.

PAUL A couple of very brutal incidents.

BOB And that’s what we wanted to do was to amend the law, we agreed with Chester Burrows amendment, we agree with John Boscawen’s member’s bill, which simply more clearly defined what was reasonable and what was not, it was a win win situation, that’s what parents want, they want certainty in the law.  At the moment we’ve got this mish mash, parents don’t know where they stand.

And this is a key point. As far as I know no-one is arguing to go back to the old law. The Borrows amendment would beyond any doubt take care of those cases where there was public disquiet about verdicts under the old law.

PAUL But isn’t it strange that in this day and age we’re having a debate about whether we should be able to assault children?

BOB  No it’s not about assault.

And for the fourth of fith time Holmes uses the language of the small minority who support the law. It is Holmes at his most biased. He has lost basically every argument, so he resorts back to slogans.

PAUL Come on!

CHERYL  It’s not assault.  Assaulting children – in fact actually the footage that you showed of whacking a child over and over and over again, I don’t agree with that, that’s not what I’m saying, and that’s what – I talk to hundreds of parents, I talk to parents in the school ground all the time, and they say to me this is crazy, what’s going on with the law.

And again a good response.

PAUL Is this driven by adherence to the old biblical saying that to spare the rod is to spoil the child?  Do you believe that?

BOB No I think we be disciplining kids, I think we should be bringing them up, we should be training them and they should have clear boundaries, they should be surrounded in a loving family and the question is should a parent who’s bringing up a loving family, is loving the kid, doing all the things right, and chooses to use a smack, should they be criminalised, I would say no, it’s as simple as that, 85% of New Zealanders are saying that.

This time Holmes tries to paint it as religious fundamentalism. But there are many people like me who support gay marriage, abortion on demand, ending blasphemy laws, minimal censorship, gay adoption, legal prostitution etc etc – yet think this law that criminalises so many parents is wrong and should be amended in line the Borrows/Boscawen bill.

I thought Therese Arseneu summied it up well on the panel discussion:

THERESE        I think what the debate comes down to is that one smack that’s she’s talking about, that she agrees that if it’s multiply smacks it is assault, and I guess what you hear from their side is that they don’t take great comfort in the fact that the Police – you know the compromise that came from National that the Police will have discretion when it comes down to that one smack, it’s highly unlikely that any parent is going to be criminalised for one smack, but the problem is that parents don’t like that that one smack is considered criminal.

No they don’t. They resent it like hell. And the Borrows/Boscawen bill would change it so that it isn’t.

The Herald reports:

But a Weekend Herald-DigiPoll survey, which put the same questions this month to 200 parents of 4-year-olds, has found that just 9 per cent of mothers and 8 per cent of fathers now smack their children that often [weekly].

About two-thirds of both mothers and fathers still smack at least occasionally, despite the 2007 law promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford that banned using force against children for the purpose of “correction”.

It is a small sample size, but in line with other polls.

Despite this, in line with other recent polls, a massive 85.4 per cent still plan to vote “No” on the referendum question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

Only 10.8 per cent plan to vote “Yes”, with 3.8 per cent undecided.

Not only do those who still smack resent this law. Even those who choose not to, say the law should go. They think parents should decide how to raise their children – not the state. They do not accept that a light smack is abuse, violence, bashing etc.

However, the Herald poll has found that 78.5 per cent of the parents questioned plan to vote. Only 14 per cent say they will not vote, and 7 per cent are unsure.

The higher the turnout, the harder it is for the Government and Parliament to dismiss it.

For those in or near Epsom,Rodney Hide is having a public forum at 5.30 pm on Friday 24 July. The guest speaker is Bob McCoskrie on why you should vote No in the referendum.

It is at the Mecca Cafe, corner of Nuffield Street and Remuera Road, Newmarket. A cash bar will operate.

Cactus Kate blogs approvingly of a speech Barack Obama gave to the NAACP where he told parents to put away the x-box:

So last night we had the Obama speech/sermon to the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Most of the first part of the speech was dreadful, about how he was going to spend more of mostly the white man’s money. Being at a coloured convention he received a thunderous applause for every trillion he stole.

But then Obama turned it all on the audience. He was brilliant. I think he wrote this part of the speech himself.

“Government programs alone won’t get our children to the Promised Land,”

“We have to say to our children, ‘Yes, if you’re African-American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher, Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not.’

“But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands and don’t you forget that.”

“I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers,” Obama said. “I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court justice. I want them aspiring to be president of the United States.”

Only a black President could give that speech.

Kate goes on to say:

If only we could have an effective co-President who made sound fiscal decisions

I agree. A lot of what Obama has done I have no problems with. His fiscal policies though are an unmitigated disaster (yes even worse than Bush and he was crap fiscally) and I think will lead to another US crash when they start printing money to pay the bills.

A short clip of part of the speech. He even urges parents to take action if their neighbour’s kids are misbehaving – including smaclking them!

Lyndon at Scoop has done an excellent guide to help you vote in the referendum. Enjoy it.

Some extracts from an e-mail a reader sent to me. I suspect he speaks for many people:

I would like politicians to know why the anti-smacking debate is important to me and people like me– This is why National and John Key need to be be careful about something that they consider unimportant.

I voted for John Key in the last election but I voted for Helen Clark in 1999 and 2002. I like John Key and believe his positive attitude is good for New Zealand but if he continues making those statements like yesterday I will vote for Labour again, or ACT (at least Rodney is against this bill). This is not a threat just a fact. Myself and my wife believe that the Government should spend my money to pave the roads, keep my safe and provide a bit of entertainment (ah la Richard Worth). I expect nothing from the government unless I am completely screwed. (that is why I would hate to vote for Labour again)

I am a father of 3 girls ages 5 and under. I have never smacked two of them and the other one (who I love equally) does get smacked about twice a year. She is stronger willed and more likely to bully the others. She is probably more like to succeed tooJ

The reason I am so angry with JK’s attitude is because I have to deal with the normal bullshit everyone else has to deal with like housing costs, bills, rates etc but the fact that if my wife or I feel that a smack is deserved occasionally is my business not anyone else’s. The fact that CYFS can take our children away if we break this law would destroy us. Therefore we will do whatever we decide to keep our little world together, even it means voting for someone I don’t like because I don’t expect any from the government I really don’t care who’s there. Most of my friends are the same we all work hard and try our best to bring up good children (we don’t all succeed every day). …

I know that an occasional smack works with some children and makes them better people. This is not a debate that Plunket (who have lost touch with parents) and the Government need to worry about as there are thousands of Parents who “know” the same thing. New Zealand is basically a good country and it is the fear that my children could be taken away that is more important to me than any economic policy, climate change strategy or social welfare policy could ever be. If I lose my job I have my family, if I lose my family I have nothing.

This fear may be unfounded but Sue Bradford’s law does not allow for people like me – people who abide by the law and care about their family. The party (or person) who can allay this fear will win the next election. Chester Burrows amendment to s59. I thought was perfect. It would actually secure them the next election by implementing the wishes of the people.

I am sending this email because John Key lost more votes with his attitude over the smacking referendum then he will ever lose over Richard Worth, Melissa Lee or Christine Rankin combined – none of them effected my life, this bill does.

I want John Key to be our Prime Minister after 2011 but he needs to understand he needs to treat this issue with respect. The thought of Phil Goff being the next PM is horrible but it might happen if John Key thinks this current law works – it doesn’t because it makes parents criminals.

I encouraged the reader to send his e-mail to the PM and his local National MP.

Unlike John Key and Phil Goff, I will not be abstaining. I will be voting No. There are several reasons I will be doing so.

1. First of all, I have consistently supported the Borrows amendment as a highly sensible compromise. I do not support a return to the old law, and if it was a choice between the old law and the current law, I would stick with the current law. But the Borrows amendment explicitly excludes force as being reasonable if “it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used”.
2. I also support the Borrows amendment as it actually gives more protection to children in non-correctional situations. For example parents under Bradford’s law can use an undefined level of reasonable force in situations to prevent disruptive behaviour. Yes we have a law that says you can not smack for correctional purposes but can use an undefined level of reasonable force to prevent a child from continuing in disruptive behaviour. Do you want to argue the difference with the Police?
3. I don’t agree that the law is working well. It depends how you define well. If you look at criminal convictions only, I agree there have not been any convictions that are unreasonable. But I don’t think that is the only measure. I never expected scores of parents would be sent to jail for smacking their kids, just as I never expected scores of people jailed for breaching the Electoral Finance Act. That doesn’t mean it is good law though. The current law is confusing, parents do not understand it, and many absolutely fine parents have had to go through unnecessary Police or CYFS investigations.
4. I have a belief that the state should not intervene in how parents raise their children, unless there is clear harm to the children. Parenting is an exceptionally challenging and complex duty, and most parents excel at it without the state telling them how to correct their children’s behaviour. The tragedy is the the state often fails miserably at intervening with horrendous cases of child abuse, yet does intervene when a parent lightly smacks their child. A light smack is not child abuse. It is not assault. Good God it was only 20 years ago that most schools had corporal punishment.
5. Supporting the Borrows amendment is not the same as supporting smacking as a preferred correctional device. It is about not having the law declare parents criminals if they do a light smack for correctional purposes.
6. The wording of the referendum, while not perfect, is more than clear enough. the current law makes any form of correctional smacking a criminal offence – whether part of good, bad or neutral parenting. If you think smacking is automatically bad parenting then vote yes as Sue Bradford will do. If you think that there are situations where a parent should be able to lightly smack for correctional purposes without breaking the law then vote no.

Finally if you are unhappy with the $9 million cost of the referendum, remember that the former Labour Government refused to schedule it at the time of the general election, which would have saved millions.

If the No Vote clearly wins, and there is a significant turnout (say over 50%), then John Key and Phil Goff should support the Borrows amendment (now a private members bill by John Boscawen) as a sensible compromise.

Some parts of the Goff interview showed he wasnt getting it, but others suggest he is getting it – and in fact may be able to pull off a political coup. Taking the interview in order:

PHIL Well actually it was interesting I went to a meeting of the Rotorua District Council and one of the Councillors go up there in front of all of his colleagues and the Mayor and said look I think the Labour government did a good job, he said I voted National last time, I think you got the big things right but the little things irritated me. Later on in the day he told the Council well he was re-examining his position, but I think that’s right, there were things that you do after nine years in office that irritate people, people think that there’s a need for a change, give the other guys a go and if we don’t like them we can toss them out in three years, that sort of feedback.

PAUL Are you still in denial, it was a massive rejection.

Not a good start. It isn’t just Clark. Labour are still acting as if they did nothing wrong but a couple of minor things. They think just hold their breath and they’ll be back in office in three years as the natural party of government.

PHIL Well my vision for New Zealand is it starts with a decent society affairs society, I grew up on my grandmother’s knee, her husband a war veteran from the first war died in 1934 right in the middle of the Depression, they lost their job, they lost their home, for me Labour was about a decent society that looks after all of its people, that treats people fairly that treats people with dignity and respect, so that’s the core of my political beliefs, and that could well become very relevant again in the next few months as more New Zealanders the Treasury say another 60,000 New Zealanders lose their jobs, people lose their homes and so on. But it’s about more than that, as Minister of Trade it was about having an economy that was innovative, efficient, competitive in the world. As Foreign Minister it was about being proud of your national identity, not kowtowing to any other country but standing up for the things that you believe in, believing that New Zealand is a country of 4.3 million people can still make a difference, and we did, and finally I think it’s about the environment, a sustainable environment, living up to that brand of clean green 100% pure New Zealand.

The personal stuff was good, and the ending was good. But Goff needs to stop talking so much about what he did as a Minister. No one cares any more – the sad reality. For nine years it has been about campaigning on his record, but to win in 2011, it will be ablout campaigning on a new vision.

PAUL Let’s get to the nitty gritty what policies do you think will have to change, for example can I ask you about smacking, for example should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

PHIL Well my answer to that is no it shouldn’t be a criminal offence or we should not have people following up and prosecuting parents for a smack in that context, but remember 110 out of a 122 MPs voted for that legislation including every member of the National Party.

Now here I give Goff 9/10. He has said a smack for correctional purposes should not be a criminal offence.  If he comes out and pledges that Labour will respect the results of the upcoming referendum, he;ll leave National wrong-footed and dramatically brand Goff Labour as different from Clark Labour.

Frankly I am not sure he has the authority to force it onto his caucus. But if he can, then it could be a turning point in his leadership. He needs to take some risks, and committing Labour to respect the results of the referendum would be worth the risk.

PAUL What about the Maori seats, take a stand, there’s 160,000 in Auckland shouldn’t they be able to campaign on their own don’t you think?

PHIL Well that’s the Royal Commission’s argument for it, I’ve got an open mind on that, what I’m saying at this stage is that at least it should have been consulted on, it shouldn’t have been scrapped without any consultation.

This is my criticism of Labour. They will criticise what the Government is doing, but won’t actually say what they would do.

PHIL Oh John’s a very nice guy, I think his strength is that he comes across as a middle New Zealander, he comes across as somebody that people can relate to as a human being, I think that’s good for him, what are his weaknesses, I think that his weaknesses are that the policies that’s he’s pursuing on the advice of Crosby Textor are not what he actually believes, and you can see that for the things that John Key said before he became leader compared to what he’s saying now he’s the leader, whether it’s Iraq or whether it’s a range of different issues, he used to push the party down a right wing path, he’s been told that that’s not good you can never win middle New Zealand that way, he’s created a new face but is that the reality of what underlies the National Party and John Key. The electorate will get to see that in course.

Labour don’t realise that no one outside the beltway cares one fuck about Crosby Textor. And Goff is going to get a nasty surprise if he keeps trying to push that Key is a nasty neo-conservative in drag. It did not work in 2008, and will work even less now.

Overall a pretty good interview. Not great, but with some promise. His statement on the anti-smacking law was excellent, and if he follows up by getting his party to promise to respect the referendum results, then he would put the Government on the back foot, and gain some real momentum for Labour.

Goff traditionally has had some pretty good instincts. He needs to be prepared to break with the past more, and trust his instincts.

UPDATE: NZPA have reported that Goff has clarified his comments and says there is no change to their policy on the law. A pity and lost opportunity – it would have left National looking defensive if he had. Now instead he just reminds people of Labour’s association with it.

Over at Curiablog I have blogged on the apparent differences between polls on the Section 59 law and how in fact the two polls can be reconciled to each other.

For example while the UMR poll did find only 28% opposed to the new law, they also found 58% agreed that “There are certain circumstances when it is alright for parents to use physical punishment with children” .

In fact only 20% of UMR respondents disagreed with that statement.

I’ve also covered in some detail, how different polls can be focusing on different elements of a law, and differently worded questions can produce different results. This does not mean either one is biased – it means they are focused on different things.

ACT MP John Boscawen has said:

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007. …

“While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.

“The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.

I have not seen the bill and am interested in what the exact wording will be.

What I would do is base the bill on the Borrows amendment. This allows reasonable force for correction (in addition to the current grounds of preventing harm, preventing crime, prventing offensive or disruptive behaviour and performing normal daily task incidental to good parenting) but places severe limits on what is reasonable force compared to the previous law.

Specifically it excludes force if:

it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used

Now National voted for the Borrows amendment at the committee of the whole stage. So if John Boscawen gets his bill selected from the ballot (which may never happen) I think they would feel obligated to vote for it.

And if you put aside the zealots who think they should tell every parent in NZ how to raise their family, most reasonable people would acknowledge that the Borrows amendment would deal with 99% of the cases which have caused concern (the horse whip case etc) without criminalising hundreds of thousands of parents.

Note Curia (which I own) conducted the poll for Family First (on our normal commercial terms) on this law which was released yesterday (and is covered at Curiablog). I had no idea that John was planning a private members bill on this issue, and only found out when I saw his press release.

UPDATE: Sue Bradford has attacked me for the poll, and says it does not align to other polls. Now the 80% opposition to the law has occurred in numerous polls by numerous organisations and I totally reject the suggestion the questions are slanted. In fact the question even goes so far as to mention the Police discretion in the law – yet the public still say they do not support it.

Bradford points to a UMR poll for the Children’s Commissioner which had 43% support the law change and only 28% opposition. But unlike the Curia poll which actually asked people about the specific law change, the UMR poll just asked people if they supported the law change without describing it to them, and further asked them after they had asked them “Should children be entitled to the same protection from assault as adults”. The order of questions is very important and in the poll Curia did we asked people about the law change before asking any other questions.

The question Curia asked was:

In 2007, Parliament passed a law that removes a defence of reasonable force for parents who smack a child to correct their behaviour, but states the Police have discretion not to prosecute if they consider the offence was inconsequential. What is your view of this law?

I am extremely confident that the number of New Zealanders who oppose this law is much greater than 28%.

Family First has rated every party leader for their “family friendliness” as they see it. This is a great idea, as those who agree with Family First’s values can use it as a positive guide, and those who disagree can use it as a negative guide. More lobby groups should do this sort of stuff.

The overall ratings (in order) for each Leader is:

1. Winston Peters 77%
2. Peter Dunne 69%
3. Pita Sharples 57%
4. Tariana Turia 54%
5. John Key 54%
6. Jim Anderton 38%
7. Rodney Hide 31%
8. Jeanette Fitzsimons 15%
9. Helen Clark 8%

Winston is the poster boy for social conservatism which is why it is so hilarious that so many on the left are doing everything possible to defend him.

There were 13 issues or votes they judged the Leaders on. I list them below, along with how I would have voted on it if I was an MP.

1. Prostitution Bill- DPF support – 0
2. Civil Unions – DPF support – 0
3. Relationships Bill – DPF support – 0
4. Parental Notification for under 16 abortions – DPF support – 1 (I support notification, not approval)
5. Euthanasia – DPF support – 0
6. Care of Children – DPF oppose – 1
7. Marriage Amendment (define as man/woman only) – DPF oppose – 0
8. Anti-Smacking – DPF oppose – 1
9. Easter Trading – DPF support – 0
10. Easter Sunday Trading – DPF support – 0
11. Drinking Age to 20 – DPF oppose – 0
12. Street Prostitution (Manukau) – DPF oppose – 0
13. Electoral Finance – DPF oppose – 1

So if I was a party leader I would be scored 4/13 or 31% – the same as Rodney Hide.

As expected, the anti-anti-smacking petition got the required number of signatures, and a postal referendum will be held within 12 months – probably the first half of 2009.

It is a pity that signatures were not gained a bit earlier, so that it would have been even harder for Helen Clark to not hold the vote alongside the general election.

I suspect the referendum will have only around 20% voting in favour of criminalising a smack as part of good parental correction, and 80% against. The turnout will be interesting.

The challenge will be for the Government in office at the time. Refusing to make any change at all to the law could be politically risky. The sensible compromise would be what should have been the compromise all along – the Borrows amendment.

The Sunday Star-Times does its own focus group in Newlands, Wellington.

LYNNE WARREN was so annoyed at the government’s plan to ban incandescent light bulbs that she went out and bought up a sackful. She is tired of Labour telling her what to do.

She doesn’t like the new, green, fluorescent compact bulbs. As a hairdresser she needs lots of light, fast. She doesn’t want to hang around waiting for the bulbs to shine properly.

But the light bulbs were just part of the problem. “The way things are going,” she says, pausing above her client’s rollers, “we don’t get much of a say any more.

I have been surprised by how much the light bulb ban has become a hot issue.

And wait until Lynne finds out that the Government is going to force all hairdressers to draw up a public health management plan, and have to submit it to the Government for approval.

The thing that annoyed her most the turning point in her thinking, it seems was the anti-smacking law. She and her husband have two sons, both now grown-up, and she didn’t think it was the government’s job to tell them how the kids should be raised.

“I have been lucky with my children. They didn’t get into any bad trouble,” she says. She and her husband didn’t mistreat the boys, of whom she is clearly proud. So what business has the prime minister interfering?

The fact that the law change has become so associated with Helen Clark instead of Sue Bradford has been one of a number of strategic blunders by Labour.

John Armstrong writes:

Unless the Prime Minister is planning to go to the country much earlier than everyone expects, her assertion that it is not possible to hold the anticipated citizens-initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law on election day simply does not stack up.

Helen Clark claims there is not enough time for the referendum to run alongside the general election “just in terms of sheer organisation”.

The real reason, of course, is Labour does not want its election campaign sullied by periodic discussion of the smacking law whose “nanny-state” connotations have proved to be so damaging to her and her party.

Yep.

There are good reasons for holding such plebiscites on election day. They are considerably cheaper than stand-alone ones. There is also likely to be a much higher voter turnout.

So to hide the realpolitik, the Prime Minister cites practical difficulties in organising a referendum.

But if that is the case, then it would be impossible to hold a snap election. In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, the 1984 snap election was called by Sir Robert Muldoon just four weeks before polling day. Somehow, electoral officials coped.

In fact, the law covering citizens-initiated referendums specifically allows Parliament to shift the date of a referendum to the day of a snap election. That suggests there is sufficient time and it is not a problem.

Useful piece of research. Basically saying one can do a referendum in 4 – 6 weeks if really pushed. Well with five months to go until the election, there is oodles of time.

It is outrageous that Helen Clark is going to waste $10 million of taxpayer money by scheduling the referendum on the anti-smacking law after the election.

Asked why it could not be held at the same time as the election, which must be held by November 15, she replied: “Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible”.

That is simply nonsense. The election date is around five months away, and the Chief Electoral Office is a very capable operator who can handle the addition of a referendum question. They read the newspapers and would have contingency plans for if the petition succeeds and is held with the election.

Everyone knows that Helen is lying when she says it is not logistically possible. The truth is that politically Helen does not want it at the same time as the election, so she is prepared to waste $10 million in order to advantage herself.

NZPA reports that the petition to force a referendum on the anti-smacking law has not made its target of 10% of voters, as too many were found to be invalid.

However the law provides for them to have another two months to bring it back over the level required, and they should manage this easily.

They needed 285,027 signatures valid signatures. They got 324,216 but a sample found around 11% were not able to be found on the electoral roll plus 1% illegible and 0.5% duplicates.  This is about normal off mory.

So their valid signatures were calculated as 269,500 so they need 16,000 more valid signatures which is probably 20,000 more total signatures to be safe.

I suspect the Government is nervous about having every voter reminded of the law they are primarily identified with, at the very point at which they are voting.

I’m used to getting abusive comments, and abusive e-mails.  Even had the odd abusive phone call at home. Yesterday I received my first abusive text message:

“You and McCroskie (and National?) share a very sick way of life when you defend the riding crop sicko and other child beaters. You are a very sad unit!” 

I love the rational intelligent ones.

The Government should read this column and be afraid:

I agree with Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock. Eight words which churn my stomach as I write them. When left-leaning, social liberals like me are forced to align with the fundies speaking in tongues and organising petitions, you know our little country at the bottom of the world has gone mad…

The problem for me is that I love the law and the democratic process. As a lawyer, I understand the benefits of obeying the law and the potential consequences of disregarding it. I want to parent within the law and I want to be able to use smacking as one of many parenting tools…

I don’t believe smacking is for every parent or every child. I don’t believe that it’s an effective tool once children get beyond four or five. I wouldn’t insist that you smack your child, but I don’t believe Parliament fixes anything by taking away my right to smack mine.

Sue Bradford told us that we had to stop treating our children as property. They are people too, with their own minds and their own rights. Illuminating stuff. But the police officer who pulled me over and asked why my child was wandering willy-nilly around the backseat didn’t buy it. I am apparently totally responsible for her well-being and behaviour, but not to be trusted when it comes to making parenting decisions about how to develop her sense of right and wrong.

The whole column is worth a read. And Sacha Coburn will not be an exception – there will be many more like her – left leaning liberals who don’t like this law.